Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[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.

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

Since all you have is models, and those models are unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable, what exactly is the point of further fueling your fantasy?

 

[IanC]

Since all you have is models, and those models are unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable, what exactly is the point of further fueling your fantasy?

What??? Now you don't want to discuss the unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable Stefan Boltzmann model?

You are no student of history. If you were, then you would know that Planck invented the concept of quantum distance and energy because the thermodynamic models of the time couldn't work without it. Google the ultraviolet catastrophe.

I think it is funny that you have total faith in a model that was known to be wrong or incomplete as soon as it was proposed.

You dismiss QM yet you use one of the most esoteric, edge of the envelope suggestions that because photons travel at the speed of light they can test their landing spot without being hampered by time or distance. Even the great Maxwell said it was above his pay grade. He gave us the equations to calculate what happens but refused to hazard a guess as to HOW it happens.

Most of us have double standards. We accept certain things more readily if we agree with them and they fit our worldview. And reject other things unless the evidence is overwhelming if we disagree. But you take it to a whole new level. The evidence not only fits our version of physics better but actually disproves yours. You simply play Catch-22.

 

[SSDD]

What??? Now you don't want to discuss the unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable Stefan Boltzmann model?

We discussed it..you can't even grasp, or recognize an equation that describes gross one way energy flow...you are perfectly willing to do absolutely piss poor math and needlessly complicate an already reduced equation in an attempt to make it say something that it doesn't...and you can describe no other instance in physics where you might want to apply the distributive property to an equation that is reduced...or when it might be something other than bad math.

And by the way...I don't even believe photons exist...I believe light is a wave with properties we are yet to understand...You believe in photons and if you are going to make arguments about them, then your arguments must take into account the properties that those who believe in photons have assigned to them...they explain why energy only moves from cool to warm...the fact that you don't like it isn't my problem.

 

[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.

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.

According to NASA, the two measurements are indistinguishable from one another. You have shown no rise.. Just like your hot spot in the atmosphere, its a no show.. You do know that means your hypothesis has failed, don't you? Now what is wrong and how are you going to fix it?

 

[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.

Since all you have is models, and those models are unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable, what exactly is the point of further fueling your fantasy?

And you have something other than models?

I spent a week or two asking for some of 'all the evidence is on my side' from you. You presented nothing.

I personally like having you around. There is nothing as efficient as having to defend your ideas to bring those ideas into sharper focus. I have changed my position on many of the smaller details because of your challenges but the general ideas remain intact. Stronger actually.

Thanks for that.

I still wish you would be more forthcoming in your defense of N&Z. That is an area that most laymen are blind to. Unfortunately so, because it is an integral part of the discussion of the greenhouse effect.

 

[SSDD]

And you have something other than models?

Yes ian, observed measured evidence...

I spent a week or two asking for some of 'all the evidence is on my side' from you. You presented nothing.

what do you wan't more than every observation and measurement ever made?

I still wish you would be more forthcoming in your defense of N&Z. That is an area that most laymen are blind to. Unfortunately so, because it is an integral part of the discussion of the greenhouse effect.

The simple fact that their hypothesis works on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse hypothesis only works here if you allow an ad hoc fudge factor...how much more evidence do you need? And there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science...never was..and never will be.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And you have something other than models?

Yes ian, observed measured evidence...

I spent a week or two asking for some of 'all the evidence is on my side' from you. You presented nothing.

what do you wan't more than every observation and measurement ever made?

I still wish you would be more forthcoming in your defense of N&Z. That is an area that most laymen are blind to. Unfortunately so, because it is an integral part of the discussion of the greenhouse effect.

The simple fact that their hypothesis works on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse hypothesis only works here if you allow an ad hoc fudge factor...how much more evidence do you need? And there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science...never was..and never will be.

what do you wan't more than every observation and measurement ever made?

How about a couple of observations and measurements that show the cooler object ceases radiating?
And an explanation of how the hotter object determines the temperature of the cooler object, so the dimmer switch knows how much radiating to allow?

 

[SSDD]

[


How about a couple of observations and measurements that show the cooler object ceases radiating?

The cooler object will radiate if there is a direction in which the radiation can move to a cooler area...I suppose it would only stop radiating if it were completely surrounded by warmer material...and if you care to set up the experiment and try measuring energy moving from the cooler object with an instrument at ambient temperature, you will detect no radiation coming from the cooler object.

And an explanation of how the hotter object determines the temperature of the cooler object, so the dimmer switch knows how much radiating to allow?

How does a rock know which way to fall? Does it have to be intelligent...does it ask the other rocks in its vicinity? Does it perhaps ask the sky? How does it know?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[


How about a couple of observations and measurements that show the cooler object ceases radiating?

The cooler object will radiate if there is a direction in which the radiation can move to a cooler area...I suppose it would only stop radiating if it were completely surrounded by warmer material...and if you care to set up the experiment and try measuring energy moving from the cooler object with an instrument at ambient temperature, you will detect no radiation coming from the cooler object.

And an explanation of how the hotter object determines the temperature of the cooler object, so the dimmer switch knows how much radiating to allow?

How does a rock know which way to fall? Does it have to be intelligent...does it ask the other rocks in its vicinity? Does it perhaps ask the sky? How does it know?

I suppose it would only stop radiating if it were completely surrounded by warmer material..

So post some experiments where they prove your supposition.
Or even discuss the idea that cooler matter doesn't emit toward warmer matter.

How does a rock know which way to fall?

We're not talking about rocks or the current theory of mass curving space-time.
We're talking about information being sent without an exchange of radiation.
Faster than light.

Never seen you post anyone else making your particular causality violating claim.

 

[IanC]

We're talking about information being sent without an exchange of radiation.
Faster than light.

You have to be really, really careful about making assumptions about light and QM.



Bell's Theorum is a real kick in the nuts to anyone wanting to just stick with classical physics.

 

[IanC]

And you have something other than models?

Yes ian, observed measured evidence...

I spent a week or two asking for some of 'all the evidence is on my side' from you. You presented nothing.

what do you wan't more than every observation and measurement ever made?

I still wish you would be more forthcoming in your defense of N&Z. That is an area that most laymen are blind to. Unfortunately so, because it is an integral part of the discussion of the greenhouse effect.

The simple fact that their hypothesis works on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse hypothesis only works here if you allow an ad hoc fudge factor...how much more evidence do you need? And there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science...never was..and never will be.

As per usual, you make a naked claim and refuse to back it up.

Whenever I try to get you to discuss the nuts and bolts you simply run away. I assume that you simply don't understand what is going on, but there is no reason why you couldn't learn more about it.

 

[SSDD]

And you have something other than models?

Yes ian, observed measured evidence...

I spent a week or two asking for some of 'all the evidence is on my side' from you. You presented nothing.

what do you wan't more than every observation and measurement ever made?

I still wish you would be more forthcoming in your defense of N&Z. That is an area that most laymen are blind to. Unfortunately so, because it is an integral part of the discussion of the greenhouse effect.

The simple fact that their hypothesis works on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse hypothesis only works here if you allow an ad hoc fudge factor...how much more evidence do you need? And there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science...never was..and never will be.

As per usual, you make a naked claim and refuse to back it up.

Whenever I try to get you to discuss the nuts and bolts you simply run away. I assume that you simply don't understand what is going on, but there is no reason why you couldn't learn more about it.

Ian...any hypothesis that doesn't work on any other planet with a solar system and only works here if you apply an ad hoc fudge factor is not worth discussing. What could you possibly say about a hypothesis that requires an ad hoc fudge factor in order to even be close? A hypothesis which has experienced predictive failure after predictive failure after predictive failure...Why would you even want to try to defend such a steaming pile? There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science....period. If you want to discuss fiction, there are a whole universe of more interesting topics than the greenhouse effect as described by climate science...

If you were capable of real critical thought, it would take you about 2 seconds to discount such an obvious politicization of science for monetary gain and move on looking for someone promoting a hypothesis that works wherever it is tried.

 

[IanC]

And you have something other than models?

Yes ian, observed measured evidence...

I spent a week or two asking for some of 'all the evidence is on my side' from you. You presented nothing.

what do you wan't more than every observation and measurement ever made?

I still wish you would be more forthcoming in your defense of N&Z. That is an area that most laymen are blind to. Unfortunately so, because it is an integral part of the discussion of the greenhouse effect.

The simple fact that their hypothesis works on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse hypothesis only works here if you allow an ad hoc fudge factor...how much more evidence do you need? And there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science...never was..and never will be.

As per usual, you make a naked claim and refuse to back it up.

Whenever I try to get you to discuss the nuts and bolts you simply run away. I assume that you simply don't understand what is going on, but there is no reason why you couldn't learn more about it.

Ian...any hypothesis that doesn't work on any other planet with a solar system and only works here if you apply an ad hoc fudge factor is not worth discussing. What could you possibly say about a hypothesis that requires an ad hoc fudge factor in order to even be close? A hypothesis which has experienced predictive failure after predictive failure after predictive failure...Why would you even want to try to defend such a steaming pile? There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science....period. If you want to discuss fiction, there are a whole universe of more interesting topics than the greenhouse effect as described by climate science...

If you were capable of real critical thought, it would take you about 2 seconds to discount such an obvious politicization of science for monetary gain and move on looking for someone promoting a hypothesis that works wherever it is tried.

I don't give a shit about political ramifications, I only care about figuring out what is happening.

I have repeatedly tried to engage you in a discussion about N&Z. There are a lot of interesting ideas there, with or without adding GHGs to the mix.

You keep asking me to defend the IPCC position when I have already stated I don't agree with it. They get water feedbacks wrong, they probably get convection wrong (remember the Pot Lid Hypothesis?)

What I am asking you to do is explain and defend your position. I will do the same. I find it hard to find my weaknesses without someone challenging my ideas and assumptions.

Probably you just don't understand the N&Z paper. Are you just parroting their ideas? On faith?

 

[SSDD]

And you have something other than models?

Yes ian, observed measured evidence...

I spent a week or two asking for some of 'all the evidence is on my side' from you. You presented nothing.

what do you wan't more than every observation and measurement ever made?

I still wish you would be more forthcoming in your defense of N&Z. That is an area that most laymen are blind to. Unfortunately so, because it is an integral part of the discussion of the greenhouse effect.

The simple fact that their hypothesis works on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse hypothesis only works here if you allow an ad hoc fudge factor...how much more evidence do you need? And there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science...never was..and never will be.

As per usual, you make a naked claim and refuse to back it up.

Whenever I try to get you to discuss the nuts and bolts you simply run away. I assume that you simply don't understand what is going on, but there is no reason why you couldn't learn more about it.

Ian...any hypothesis that doesn't work on any other planet with a solar system and only works here if you apply an ad hoc fudge factor is not worth discussing. What could you possibly say about a hypothesis that requires an ad hoc fudge factor in order to even be close? A hypothesis which has experienced predictive failure after predictive failure after predictive failure...Why would you even want to try to defend such a steaming pile? There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science....period. If you want to discuss fiction, there are a whole universe of more interesting topics than the greenhouse effect as described by climate science...

If you were capable of real critical thought, it would take you about 2 seconds to discount such an obvious politicization of science for monetary gain and move on looking for someone promoting a hypothesis that works wherever it is tried.

I don't give a shit about political ramifications, I only care about figuring out what is happening.

I have repeatedly tried to engage you in a discussion about N&Z. There are a lot of interesting ideas there, with or without adding GHGs to the mix.

You keep asking me to defend the IPCC position when I have already stated I don't agree with it. They get water feedbacks wrong, they probably get convection wrong (remember the Pot Lid Hypothesis?)

What I am asking you to do is explain and defend your position. I will do the same. I find it hard to find my weaknesses without someone challenging my ideas and assumptions.

Probably you just don't understand the N&Z paper. Are you just parroting their ideas? On faith?

Your position is indefensible ian...As I said, if you want to discuss fiction, there is a universe of more interesting topics than the greenhouse effect....here have a look at some empirical evidence...

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...ment-against-the-greenh-2157-7617-1000393.pdf

Clips:

The starting point of the here referenced research was the generally accepted greenhouse thesis which assumes that the present climate change is mainly due to the observed growing amount of the so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, particularly of carbon-dioxide in spite of the fact that, unlike a greenhouse, the Earth atmosphere doesn’t exhibit a transparent roof … This [greenhouse effect] idea takes its source in Fourier’s treatise made in 1827, exhibiting no empirical data or physical calculations and experimental data.

The first results were delivered by Tyndall in the sixties of the 19th century, using artificial IR (= infrared) radiation. His photometric [light-measuring] apparatus consisted of metallic tubes as gas vessels and Leslie cubes as heat radiation sources, entailing comparatively low temperatures, namely 100°C and lower. In the [eighteen] nineties, Arrhenius continued such measurements. He established the greenhouse thesis claiming that, unlike air, carbon-dioxide considerably absorbs infrared-radiation. Thereby we distinguish between near IR (λ = 0.8 – 3μm), emitted at high temperatures (> 1000 K), and medium IR (λ = 3 – 50μm) occurring at lower temperatures as usual thermal radiation, while IR-radiation with larger wavelengths (λ = 50 – 1000μm) is defined as far IR.

[O]verall, the greenhouse thesis has been commonly settled even if[…] its empiric basis appears poor while several theoretical presumptions are speculative. … there is reason enough to examine the current climate theory, and in particular the greenhouse thesis, regarding fundamental scientific principles and possibly to question the usual assumptions.

The analytic methods applied in climatology were exclusively photometric [light-measuring] ones. … Thermal measurements have never been made, except those by pyranometers comprising the whole spectrum, so that direct coherences between light absorption and warming-up effects at matter have not been detected yet.

The natural laws which were used for constructing the theory were confined to the temperature law of Stefan-Boltzmann (1), Planck’s distribution law (2), both being solely valid for black bodies, and BeerLambert’s absorption law (3), being unequivocally valid solely for visible light, and not compellingly for IR radiation (see below). These laws were often impermissibly generalized and used in an incorrect way leading to wrong conclusions.

Questioning The CO2-IR-Warms-The-Atmosphere Assumption
[A]ccording to this [greenhouse theory] model the assumption is made that any warming-up of the atmosphere is exclusively due to a partial absorption of medium-wave IR-radiation while any short-wave IR-absorption can be excluded since it has never been detected spectrometrically.

Against this, at least the following [5] arguments may be alleged [just the 1st , 4th, and 5th arguments are included here in very condensed form]:

1. As already found within a previous investigation [12], the greater part – namely at least 60% – of the energy being emitted from a warmed plate to the surrounding atmosphere is transferred by heat conduction, and not by heat radiation [i.e., via the greenhouse effect] obeying Stefan-Boltzmann’s law which is only valid in the vacuum. That part is even enhanced when the air convection is enhanced. Moreover, near the ground the molar concentration of water vapour is much higher than that one of carbon dioxide letting assume that its absorbance of heat radiation is much stronger. (e.g. at 20°C and 60% rel. humidity, the molar concentration of water vapour is 36 times larger than that one of carbon-dioxide being 0.038 volume%). Hence it can be assumed that the major part of the heat transfer between Earth surface and atmosphere occurs near the ground while the greenhouse theory neglects that part solely regarding the radiative absorption by CO2 passing the whole atmosphere.

4. Between the energetic absorption of electromagnetic radiation by gases and their resulting warming-up no empirical – and also no
theoretical – coherence is known which would be needed to carry spectroscopic results onto thermodynamic properties. There is no good reason to assume that absorbed IR-radiation will be entirely transformed into heat. Rather it is conceivable that a part of it is re-emitted, to wit in all directions. But the link between the two phenomena is not known.

5. The question of radiation emission by hot gases is related with it since it is obvious that any gas, also air, begins to radiate to such an extent as it is warmed-up. This question arises when the so-called radiative energy transfer is studied. But instead of empiric measurements, complicated theories were developed [15-17] starting from the abstruse assumption that the atmosphere behaves like a black body obeying Stefan-Boltzmann’s emission law, and disregarding the kinetic gas

Overall it must be assessed that the atmospheric theory is on a shaky ground. widely missing empiric key methods to check the principles and their consequences.

Air Vs. CO2 Experiment: ‘The Final Proof That The Climate Theory Cannot Be True’
Beyond, there is an aspect which hitherto has been overlooked, and which delivers the final proof that the climate theory cannot be true. It is the topic of the here reported author’s work [Allmendinger, 2016] concerning thermal measurements instead of spectroscopic ones, and delivering the evidence that any gas absorbs IR-radiation – but in the short wavelength range -, with the consequence that air is warmed up by direct solar insolation – as well as by artificial IR-light – up to a limiting temperature due to radiative emission, and leading to an equilibrium state.

Preliminary tests for the present investigation were made with solar light using square twin-tubes from Styrofoam (3 cm thick, 1 m long, outer diameter 25 cm), each equipped with three thermometers at different positions, and covered above and below by a thin transparent foil (preferably a 0.01 mm thick Saran-wrap). The tubes were pivoted on a frame in such a way that they could be oriented in the direction of the solar light (Figure 3). One tube was filled with air, the other with carbon-dioxide. Incipiently, the tubes were covered on the tops with aluminium-foils being removed at the start of the experiment.

The primary experimental result was quite astonishing in many respects.

Firstly: The content gases warmed within a few minutes by approximately 10°C up to a constant limiting temperature. This was surprising – at least in the case of air – for no warming-up was anticipated since sunlight is colourless and allegedly not able to absorb any IR-radiation. However, the existence of a limiting temperature is conceivable since a growing radiative emission has to be expected as far as the temperature rises.

Secondly: The limiting temperatures were more or less equal at any measuring point. This means that the intensity of the sun beam was virtually not affected by the heat absorption in the gas tube since the latter one was comparatively weak.

And thirdly: Between the two tubes [one filled with air, the other with CO2] no significant difference could be detected. Therefore, thanks to this simple experiment a special effect of carbon dioxide on the direct sunlight absorption could already be excluded.

As evident from Figure 8, any gas absorbs IR-light – even the noble [non-greenhouse] gases argon, neon and helium do so – while there is no significant difference between argon and carbon dioxide, but only a small difference between carbon-dioxide and air.

Conclusion/Summary
Besides a critical discussion of the convenient atmosphere theory profoundly questioning the greenhouse thesis by disclosing several basic errors, the here reported investigation reveals the discovery of direct absorption of shortwave IR-radiation by air. It is part of the incident solar light, but also of artificial light which enables a more exact detection. It is caused by another effect than the one which is responsible for the longer-wave absorption being observed at carbon dioxide, and it is not detectable by IR-spectroscopy since its absorption coefficient is too low. However, it is clearly detectable by means of the here applied apparatus leading to a distinct temperature elevation up to a limiting temperature which depends on the radiative emission. The limiting temperature depends on the gas kind, whereby practically no difference between air and carbon-dioxide could be found.

Nevertheless, that direct absorption effect [shortwave] which was discovered thanks to this method probably contributes significantly to the warming up of the atmosphere while the warming-up due to carbon-dioxide can be neglected.

But since the direct absorption cannot be influenced, the surface albedo must be focused as the governing factor providing the only [anthropogenic] opportunity to mitigate the climate, or at least the microclimate, by changing colour and structure of the surface, particularly in urban areas. However, a prediction seems not feasible since the global climate is too complex. But the greenhouse theory turns out to be a phantasm delivering the wrong diagnosis for the climate change, and a wrong diagnosis cannot enable a healing.

 

[SSDD]

By the way ian, if, indeed, the atmosphere absorbs short wave, as that paper, and the observational evidence seems to suggest, that could very well account for that "extra" energy that you obsess over so much of the time. As I have pointed out, whatever it is, it will turn out to be something we didn't understand and would have nothing to do with CO2.

 

[IanC]

And you have something other than models?

Yes ian, observed measured evidence...

I spent a week or two asking for some of 'all the evidence is on my side' from you. You presented nothing.

what do you wan't more than every observation and measurement ever made?

I still wish you would be more forthcoming in your defense of N&Z. That is an area that most laymen are blind to. Unfortunately so, because it is an integral part of the discussion of the greenhouse effect.

The simple fact that their hypothesis works on every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse hypothesis only works here if you allow an ad hoc fudge factor...how much more evidence do you need? And there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science...never was..and never will be.

As per usual, you make a naked claim and refuse to back it up.

Whenever I try to get you to discuss the nuts and bolts you simply run away. I assume that you simply don't understand what is going on, but there is no reason why you couldn't learn more about it.

Ian...any hypothesis that doesn't work on any other planet with a solar system and only works here if you apply an ad hoc fudge factor is not worth discussing. What could you possibly say about a hypothesis that requires an ad hoc fudge factor in order to even be close? A hypothesis which has experienced predictive failure after predictive failure after predictive failure...Why would you even want to try to defend such a steaming pile? There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science....period. If you want to discuss fiction, there are a whole universe of more interesting topics than the greenhouse effect as described by climate science...

If you were capable of real critical thought, it would take you about 2 seconds to discount such an obvious politicization of science for monetary gain and move on looking for someone promoting a hypothesis that works wherever it is tried.

I don't give a shit about political ramifications, I only care about figuring out what is happening.

I have repeatedly tried to engage you in a discussion about N&Z. There are a lot of interesting ideas there, with or without adding GHGs to the mix.

You keep asking me to defend the IPCC position when I have already stated I don't agree with it. They get water feedbacks wrong, they probably get convection wrong (remember the Pot Lid Hypothesis?)

What I am asking you to do is explain and defend your position. I will do the same. I find it hard to find my weaknesses without someone challenging my ideas and assumptions.

Probably you just don't understand the N&Z paper. Are you just parroting their ideas? On faith?

Your position is indefensible ian...As I said, if you want to discuss fiction, there is a universe of more interesting topics than the greenhouse effect....here have a look at some empirical evidence...

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...ment-against-the-greenh-2157-7617-1000393.pdf

Clips:

The starting point of the here referenced research was the generally accepted greenhouse thesis which assumes that the present climate change is mainly due to the observed growing amount of the so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, particularly of carbon-dioxide in spite of the fact that, unlike a greenhouse, the Earth atmosphere doesn’t exhibit a transparent roof … This [greenhouse effect] idea takes its source in Fourier’s treatise made in 1827, exhibiting no empirical data or physical calculations and experimental data.

The first results were delivered by Tyndall in the sixties of the 19th century, using artificial IR (= infrared) radiation. His photometric [light-measuring] apparatus consisted of metallic tubes as gas vessels and Leslie cubes as heat radiation sources, entailing comparatively low temperatures, namely 100°C and lower. In the [eighteen] nineties, Arrhenius continued such measurements. He established the greenhouse thesis claiming that, unlike air, carbon-dioxide considerably absorbs infrared-radiation. Thereby we distinguish between near IR (λ = 0.8 – 3μm), emitted at high temperatures (> 1000 K), and medium IR (λ = 3 – 50μm) occurring at lower temperatures as usual thermal radiation, while IR-radiation with larger wavelengths (λ = 50 – 1000μm) is defined as far IR.

[O]verall, the greenhouse thesis has been commonly settled even if[…] its empiric basis appears poor while several theoretical presumptions are speculative. … there is reason enough to examine the current climate theory, and in particular the greenhouse thesis, regarding fundamental scientific principles and possibly to question the usual assumptions.

The analytic methods applied in climatology were exclusively photometric [light-measuring] ones. … Thermal measurements have never been made, except those by pyranometers comprising the whole spectrum, so that direct coherences between light absorption and warming-up effects at matter have not been detected yet.

The natural laws which were used for constructing the theory were confined to the temperature law of Stefan-Boltzmann (1), Planck’s distribution law (2), both being solely valid for black bodies, and BeerLambert’s absorption law (3), being unequivocally valid solely for visible light, and not compellingly for IR radiation (see below). These laws were often impermissibly generalized and used in an incorrect way leading to wrong conclusions.

Questioning The CO2-IR-Warms-The-Atmosphere Assumption
[A]ccording to this [greenhouse theory] model the assumption is made that any warming-up of the atmosphere is exclusively due to a partial absorption of medium-wave IR-radiation while any short-wave IR-absorption can be excluded since it has never been detected spectrometrically.

Against this, at least the following [5] arguments may be alleged [just the 1st , 4th, and 5th arguments are included here in very condensed form]:

1. As already found within a previous investigation [12], the greater part – namely at least 60% – of the energy being emitted from a warmed plate to the surrounding atmosphere is transferred by heat conduction, and not by heat radiation [i.e., via the greenhouse effect] obeying Stefan-Boltzmann’s law which is only valid in the vacuum. That part is even enhanced when the air convection is enhanced. Moreover, near the ground the molar concentration of water vapour is much higher than that one of carbon dioxide letting assume that its absorbance of heat radiation is much stronger. (e.g. at 20°C and 60% rel. humidity, the molar concentration of water vapour is 36 times larger than that one of carbon-dioxide being 0.038 volume%). Hence it can be assumed that the major part of the heat transfer between Earth surface and atmosphere occurs near the ground while the greenhouse theory neglects that part solely regarding the radiative absorption by CO2 passing the whole atmosphere.

4. Between the energetic absorption of electromagnetic radiation by gases and their resulting warming-up no empirical – and also no
theoretical – coherence is known which would be needed to carry spectroscopic results onto thermodynamic properties. There is no good reason to assume that absorbed IR-radiation will be entirely transformed into heat. Rather it is conceivable that a part of it is re-emitted, to wit in all directions. But the link between the two phenomena is not known.

5. The question of radiation emission by hot gases is related with it since it is obvious that any gas, also air, begins to radiate to such an extent as it is warmed-up. This question arises when the so-called radiative energy transfer is studied. But instead of empiric measurements, complicated theories were developed [15-17] starting from the abstruse assumption that the atmosphere behaves like a black body obeying Stefan-Boltzmann’s emission law, and disregarding the kinetic gas

Overall it must be assessed that the atmospheric theory is on a shaky ground. widely missing empiric key methods to check the principles and their consequences.

Air Vs. CO2 Experiment: ‘The Final Proof That The Climate Theory Cannot Be True’
Beyond, there is an aspect which hitherto has been overlooked, and which delivers the final proof that the climate theory cannot be true. It is the topic of the here reported author’s work [Allmendinger, 2016] concerning thermal measurements instead of spectroscopic ones, and delivering the evidence that any gas absorbs IR-radiation – but in the short wavelength range -, with the consequence that air is warmed up by direct solar insolation – as well as by artificial IR-light – up to a limiting temperature due to radiative emission, and leading to an equilibrium state.

Preliminary tests for the present investigation were made with solar light using square twin-tubes from Styrofoam (3 cm thick, 1 m long, outer diameter 25 cm), each equipped with three thermometers at different positions, and covered above and below by a thin transparent foil (preferably a 0.01 mm thick Saran-wrap). The tubes were pivoted on a frame in such a way that they could be oriented in the direction of the solar light (Figure 3). One tube was filled with air, the other with carbon-dioxide. Incipiently, the tubes were covered on the tops with aluminium-foils being removed at the start of the experiment.

The primary experimental result was quite astonishing in many respects.

Firstly: The content gases warmed within a few minutes by approximately 10°C up to a constant limiting temperature. This was surprising – at least in the case of air – for no warming-up was anticipated since sunlight is colourless and allegedly not able to absorb any IR-radiation. However, the existence of a limiting temperature is conceivable since a growing radiative emission has to be expected as far as the temperature rises.

Secondly: The limiting temperatures were more or less equal at any measuring point. This means that the intensity of the sun beam was virtually not affected by the heat absorption in the gas tube since the latter one was comparatively weak.

And thirdly: Between the two tubes [one filled with air, the other with CO2] no significant difference could be detected. Therefore, thanks to this simple experiment a special effect of carbon dioxide on the direct sunlight absorption could already be excluded.

As evident from Figure 8, any gas absorbs IR-light – even the noble [non-greenhouse] gases argon, neon and helium do so – while there is no significant difference between argon and carbon dioxide, but only a small difference between carbon-dioxide and air.

Conclusion/Summary
Besides a critical discussion of the convenient atmosphere theory profoundly questioning the greenhouse thesis by disclosing several basic errors, the here reported investigation reveals the discovery of direct absorption of shortwave IR-radiation by air. It is part of the incident solar light, but also of artificial light which enables a more exact detection. It is caused by another effect than the one which is responsible for the longer-wave absorption being observed at carbon dioxide, and it is not detectable by IR-spectroscopy since its absorption coefficient is too low. However, it is clearly detectable by means of the here applied apparatus leading to a distinct temperature elevation up to a limiting temperature which depends on the radiative emission. The limiting temperature depends on the gas kind, whereby practically no difference between air and carbon-dioxide could be found.

Nevertheless, that direct absorption effect [shortwave] which was discovered thanks to this method probably contributes significantly to the warming up of the atmosphere while the warming-up due to carbon-dioxide can be neglected.

But since the direct absorption cannot be influenced, the surface albedo must be focused as the governing factor providing the only [anthropogenic] opportunity to mitigate the climate, or at least the microclimate, by changing colour and structure of the surface, particularly in urban areas. However, a prediction seems not feasible since the global climate is too complex. But the greenhouse theory turns out to be a phantasm delivering the wrong diagnosis for the climate change, and a wrong diagnosis cannot enable a healing.

Are you now spamming the board with the same long cut and paste?

Pick a topic, explain your point, add the link to buttress your position.

 

[IanC]

By the way ian, if, indeed, the atmosphere absorbs short wave, as that paper, and the observational evidence seems to suggest, that could very well account for that "extra" energy that you obsess over so much of the time. As I have pointed out, whatever it is, it will turn out to be something we didn't understand and would have nothing to do with CO2.

There is a perfectly obvious source of the energy needed to explain the surface temperature. You just claim it can't happen.

How could energy absorbed in the atmosphere warm the surface when you say no atmospheric energy can move towards the surface? Your thoughts and ideas are not consistent, many are mutually exclusive. And when they are pointed out to be at odds with each other you say "rocks fall down", as if that explains everything.

 

[IanC]

A planet with an atmosphere has less extreme temperatures, and a higher average temperature than a planet without one.

That is the basic scaffold. Adding GHGs changes some of the parameters but you have to understand the energy storing capacity of an atmosphere in the gravity field first.

That is why I want to discuss N&Z.

 

[SSDD]

There is a perfectly obvious source of the energy needed to explain the surface temperature. You just claim it can't happen.

Unicorn flatulance? Right..it can't happen because there are no unicorns...of course, unicorn flatulence is a more plausible reason than magical CO2.

How could energy absorbed in the atmosphere warm the surface when you say no atmospheric energy can move towards the surface? Your thoughts and ideas are not consistent, many are mutually exclusive. And when they are pointed out to be at odds with each other you say "rocks fall down", as if that explains everything.

Does water vapor exist all the way down to the surface? Does water vapor actually hold energy? Geez ian, give up the magical CO2 BS and grasp reality firmly by the horns..In addition to the fact that water vapor holds energy, there is the heat generated by the mass of the atmosphere...Wake up...my position is based in observable, measurable testable physical phenomena while yours is entirely founded in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...which have failed repeatedly by the way.

 

[SSDD]

A planet with an atmosphere has less extreme temperatures, and a higher average temperature than a planet without one.

Atmospheric thermal effect.

That is the basic scaffold. Adding GHGs changes some of the parameters but you have to understand the energy storing capacity of an atmosphere in the gravity field first.

The only so called GHG that alters energy transfer beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere is H2O