How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[Billy_Bob]

LOL... Really? "well established" Hardly!

Well known? What a laugh...In science, all manner of idiocy is well known till such time as it turns out to have been idiocy.

The SB constant is valid for a black body in a vacuum. The "fudge factor"....

If you guys want to deny the Stefan-Boltzmann equation that includes the emissivity, and if you want to deny radiation is exchanged between objects, and insist on one way radiation, and if you insist the SB equation only works in a vacuum, you disagree with thermodynamics. It is simple as that. So be it.

Neither of you can explain why the earth absorbs 160 W/m² from the sun and radiates around 400 W/m² of LWIR.

So be it.

.

You think the earth only receives 160 W/m^2 from the sun? Really?

Here is Trenbreths Cartoon...

At any one point in time we are receiving, at TOA, about 1,364 W/m^2.

In direct radiation we receive about 170W/m^2. IN INDIRECT radiation, where the energy is received by the atmosphere and then re-radiated we gain another 425 W/m^2 at the surface..

That is potentially 595 W/m^2 that is received by the surface from the solar input.

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL... Really? "well established" Hardly!

According to the physics in his fantasy world, the energy will be doubled..

That is a bald faced lie.

.

Prove it by showing me the Model and data to support your supposition.

 

[Wuwei]

You think the earth only receives 160 W/m^2 from the sun? Really?

OK so it's 170 W/m², not 160 must be different sources. Whatever.

IN INDIRECT radiation, where the energy is received by the atmosphere and then re-radiated we gain another 425 W/m^2 at the surface..

Don't let SSDD see that.

.

 

[Wuwei]

LOL... Really? "well established" Hardly!

According to the physics in his fantasy world, the energy will be doubled..

That is a bald faced lie.

.

Prove it by showing me the Model and data to support your supposition.

See Post #672

.

 

[SSDD]

If you guys want to deny the Stefan-Boltzmann equation that includes the emissivity, and if you want to deny radiation is exchanged between objects, and insist on one way radiation, and if you insist the SB equation only works in a vacuum, you disagree with thermodynamics. It is simple as that. So be it.

You really can't read words without reinterpreting them can you? Where did you get any of those notions other than the statement of the second law that says that energy only moves spontaneously in one direction, I can't imagine where you got any of it.

The version of the SB equation that is shown in the model for the greenhouse effect describes a radiator emitting into a vacuum...had they used another derivation of the equation the error would not have been so blatantly obvious...the problem is that the SB equation works for blackbodies and gray bodies......the atmosphere is neither.

A black body is a hypothetical body that absorbs without reflection all of the electromagnetic radiation incident on its surface. A gray body is any body that emits radiation at each wavelength in a constant ratio less than unity to that emitted by a black body at the same temperature. Neither of those definitions describes our atmosphere...or any atmosphere that we are aware of. The SB equation simply can not be rightly applied to gasses...it is as simple as that.

Neither of you can explain why the earth absorbs 160 W/m² from the sun and radiates around 400 W/m² of LWIR.

Because the earth does not absorb 160Wm2 from the sun...that is just a bullshit number that climate science found that they had to use in order for their bullshit equation to provide a number that closely approximates the actual temperature here...yet another reason that their bullshit formula can't even begin to predict the temperature on any other planet with an atmosphere...

 

[SSDD]

LOL... Really? "well established" Hardly!

According to the physics in his fantasy world, the energy will be doubled..

That is a bald faced lie.

.

Prove it by showing me the Model and data to support your supposition.

See Post #672

.

Application of the SB equation to the surface of the earth...a gray body...and application of the SB equation to the atmosphere...not a black body or a gray body...and counting energy in the form of long wave radiation twice even though it originates from a single source...in a word...bullshit. And that is why it can't even begin to predict the temperature of any other planet with an atmosphere... That equation predicts that venus will be about 70 degrees warmer than earth based on the 18 doublings of CO2.

 

[Wuwei]

The version of the SB equation that is shown in the model for the greenhouse effect describes a radiator emitting into a vacuum...had they used another derivation of the equation the error would not have been so blatantly obvious...the problem is that the SB equation works for blackbodies and gray bodies......the atmosphere is neither.

A black body is a hypothetical body that absorbs without reflection all of the electromagnetic radiation incident on its surface. A gray body is any body that emits radiation at each wavelength in a constant ratio less than unity to that emitted by a black body at the same temperature. Neither of those definitions describes our atmosphere...or any atmosphere that we are aware of. The SB equation simply can not be rightly applied to gasses...it is as simple as that.

Yes, the toy example is certainly way too simple to be of any serious use.
Yes, we all know how a black body and grey body are defined.
Yes, the SB equation cannot be applied to the atmosphere in a way that would make sense because of complex physical atmospheric dynamics and non-linearities.

Because the earth does not absorb 160Wm2 from the sun...that is just a bullshit number that climate science found that they had to use in order for their bullshit equation to provide a number that closely approximates the actual temperature here...yet another reason that their bullshit formula can't even begin to predict the temperature on any other planet with an atmosphere...

That number is not the solar radiation at high noon at the equator. It is the average over the whole earth at all latitudes and longitudes, and includes zero input at night.
That number is not used in serious computations involving GHG's in the atmosphere, because the effects are way way too nonlinear to use averages. The Trenberth diagrams show other averages of extremely nonlinear energy flows and are not a basis for the science. Averages like that are used only as a budgetary figure to show the various types and orders of magnitude of various energy flows.

.

 

[Wuwei]

Application of the SB equation to the surface of the earth...a gray body...and application of the SB equation to the atmosphere...not a black body or a gray body...and counting energy in the form of long wave radiation twice even though it originates from a single source...in a word...bullshit. And that is why it can't even begin to predict the temperature of any other planet with an atmosphere... That equation predicts that venus will be about 70 degrees warmer than earth based on the 18 doublings of CO2.

The energy is not counted twice. See post # 672

BTW now that you mention Venus again, where does the 1700 W/m² from the hot surface go?

.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
"it goes up, it goes down"
but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.

About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
Search Results
Web results

How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/.../how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/Apr 4, 2017 - Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by climate contrarian Lamar Smith, R-Texas, held a hearing on ...

How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate ...
www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycleNov 7, 2009 - Answer. If the Earth's temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would ...

How do we know? - Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of ...
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ...Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up .... the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the ...

Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htmHowever, internal forces do not cause climate change. ... and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but ...
[.....]
How Do We Know Humans Are Causing Climate Change? | Climate ...
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/.../how-do-we-know-humans-are-causing-climat...Feb 1, 2019 - Yes, we know humans are responsible for the climate changewe see ... as if we're wrapping another, not-so-natural blanket around the Earth.

Global warming isn't just a natural cycle » Yale Climate Connections
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/.../global-warming-isnt-just-a-natural-cycle/Sep 18, 2018 - Here's how we know that. ... Global warming isn't just anatural cycle. By Sara Peach on Sep ... The earth's temperature changesnaturally over time. Variations ... Earth's warming: How scientists know it'snot the sun. From Yale ...

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global ...
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science.../human-contribution-to-gw-faq.htmlJump to Natural and human factors that influence the climate (known as ...- Natural climate drivers include the energy ... in snow and ice cover thatchange how much ... if it were not for these human-made and natural tiny particles.

[.....]
`

My theory on man-made Climate Change is that with enough daily propaganda you can convince almost anyone about anything.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Application of the SB equation to the surface of the earth...a gray body...and application of the SB equation to the atmosphere...not a black body or a gray body...and counting energy in the form of long wave radiation twice even though it originates from a single source...in a word...bullshit. And that is why it can't even begin to predict the temperature of any other planet with an atmosphere... That equation predicts that venus will be about 70 degrees warmer than earth based on the 18 doublings of CO2.

The energy is not counted twice. See post # 672

BTW now that you mention Venus again, where does the 1700 W/m² from the hot surface go?

.

Try again... most of the Trenbreth 425W/m^2 in atmospheric radiation is from the sun not the BB upwelling. Even Trenbreth wasn't stupid enough to try and parse that out because it would show the upwelling was insignificant to the earths energy budget.

Now to the lie. 342 W/m^2 is what is theorized in ISR, yet Trenbreth indicates almost 595W/m^2. This is more energy than can enter the system at any given point on earth. Please tell me where this magical energy is stored at, adding another 170 W/m^2 would boil the earths oceans...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Application of the SB equation to the surface of the earth...a gray body...and application of the SB equation to the atmosphere...not a black body or a gray body...and counting energy in the form of long wave radiation twice even though it originates from a single source...in a word...bullshit. And that is why it can't even begin to predict the temperature of any other planet with an atmosphere... That equation predicts that venus will be about 70 degrees warmer than earth based on the 18 doublings of CO2.

The energy is not counted twice. See post # 672

BTW now that you mention Venus again, where does the 1700 W/m² from the hot surface go?

.

Try Again.... Trenbreth's cartoon most certainly does double count energy.

 

[Wuwei]

Try again... most of the Trenbreth 425W/m^2 in atmospheric radiation is from the sun not the BB upwelling. Even Trenbreth wasn't stupid enough to try and parse that out because it would show the upwelling was insignificant to the earths energy budget.

Now to the lie. 342 W/m^2 is what is theorized in ISR, yet Trenbreth indicates almost 595W/m^2. This is more energy than can enter the system at any given point on earth. Please tell me where this magical energy is stored at, adding another 170 W/m^2 would boil the earths oceans...

You mention 425 W/m², 595 W/m², and 170 W/m². None of those values occur in your Trenbreth diagram of Post #741. I am not going to waste time trying to second guess you.

.

 

[Wuwei]

Try Again.... Trenbreth's cartoon most certainly does double count energy.

SSDD's diagram does not. You are confusing two different diagrams.

You never answered my question, where does the 1700 W/m² from the hot surface go?

.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, the toy example is certainly way too simple to be of any serious use.
Yes, we all know how a black body and grey body are defined.
Yes, the SB equation cannot be applied to the atmosphere in a way that would make sense because of complex physical atmospheric dynamics and non-linearities.

You can call it a "toy" all you like and yet, it is the foundation of the greenhouse effect hypothesis and nothing as the mathematical description gets more complex ever corrects the errors made at its foundation...

That number is not the solar radiation at high noon at the equator. It is the average over the whole earth at all latitudes and longitudes, and includes zero input at night.[/quotye]

It is not even an accurate average over the whole earth...since the amount of energy absorbed by land and then radiated in the form of IR is an entirely different amount than that absorbed by the oceans and then radiated in the form of IR.

That number is not used in serious computations involving GHG's in the atmosphere, because the effects are way way too nonlinear to use averages.

Of course they are...and are used in the very same manner.

The Trenberth diagrams show other averages of extremely nonlinear energy flows and are not a basis for the science. Averages like that are used only as a budgetary figure to show the various types and orders of magnitude of various energy flows.

.

I am sure you would like to believe that...as it seems that you are beginning to get just an inkling of the problems with the hypothesis...but alas...what you see in what you call a toy...is the basis for what you see in the fully expressed hypothesis...more complicated of course...but built on a terribly flawed foundation and therefore terribly flawed from bottom to top.

 

[SSDD]

Application of the SB equation to the surface of the earth...a gray body...and application of the SB equation to the atmosphere...not a black body or a gray body...and counting energy in the form of long wave radiation twice even though it originates from a single source...in a word...bullshit. And that is why it can't even begin to predict the temperature of any other planet with an atmosphere... That equation predicts that venus will be about 70 degrees warmer than earth based on the 18 doublings of CO2.

The energy is not counted twice. See post # 672

BTW now that you mention Venus again, where does the 1700 W/m² from the hot surface go?

.

Of course it is...denial on your part doesn't change the fact...all of the energy originates from the surface of the earth..and it most certainly is counted twice....

 

[SSDD]

Application of the SB equation to the surface of the earth...a gray body...and application of the SB equation to the atmosphere...not a black body or a gray body...and counting energy in the form of long wave radiation twice even though it originates from a single source...in a word...bullshit. And that is why it can't even begin to predict the temperature of any other planet with an atmosphere... That equation predicts that venus will be about 70 degrees warmer than earth based on the 18 doublings of CO2.

The energy is not counted twice. See post # 672

BTW now that you mention Venus again, where does the 1700 W/m² from the hot surface go?

.

Precisely where I told you that it goes...

 

[SSDD]

Try Again.... Trenbreth's cartoon most certainly does double count energy.

SSDD's diagram does not. You are confusing two different diagrams.

You never answered my question, where does the 1700 W/m² from the hot surface go?

.

Here is a diagram of a system that not only can predict the temperature here, but can also accurately predict the temperature of any planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and presumably any planet anywhere with an atmosphere. Maybe you can look at it and puzzle out where the 1600Wm2 that doesn't reach the surface of venus...and doesn't leave the planet at the top of the atmosphere goes...here is a hint...enthalpy...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Try Again.... Trenbreth's cartoon most certainly does double count energy.

SSDD's diagram does not. You are confusing two different diagrams.

You never answered my question, where does the 1700 W/m² from the hot surface go?

.

Here is a diagram of a system that not only can predict the temperature here, but can also accurately predict the temperature of any planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and presumably any planet anywhere with an atmosphere. Maybe you can look at it and puzzle out where the 1600Wm2 that doesn't reach the surface of venus...and doesn't leave the planet at the top of the atmosphere goes...here is a hint...enthalpy...

This is the only process (Model) that works in our atmosphere. They accurately evaluate the 342W/m^2 that is circulating in the atmosphere where Trenbreth's Cartoon implies almost 700W/m^2.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Try again... most of the Trenbreth 425W/m^2 in atmospheric radiation is from the sun not the BB upwelling. Even Trenbreth wasn't stupid enough to try and parse that out because it would show the upwelling was insignificant to the earths energy budget.

Now to the lie. 342 W/m^2 is what is theorized in ISR, yet Trenbreth indicates almost 595W/m^2. This is more energy than can enter the system at any given point on earth. Please tell me where this magical energy is stored at, adding another 170 W/m^2 would boil the earths oceans...

You mention 425 W/m², 595 W/m², and 170 W/m². None of those values occur in your Trenbreth diagram of Post #741. I am not going to waste time trying to second guess you.

.

...and increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM does what exactly to the energy budget?

Pretty sure it has no effect whatsoever. What does your lab work show? Can you show us a repeatable lab experiment that can falsify the "no effect whatsoever" theory? What? No? you can't?!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Try again... most of the Trenbreth 425W/m^2 in atmospheric radiation is from the sun not the BB upwelling. Even Trenbreth wasn't stupid enough to try and parse that out because it would show the upwelling was insignificant to the earths energy budget.

Now to the lie. 342 W/m^2 is what is theorized in ISR, yet Trenbreth indicates almost 595W/m^2. This is more energy than can enter the system at any given point on earth. Please tell me where this magical energy is stored at, adding another 170 W/m^2 would boil the earths oceans...

You mention 425 W/m², 595 W/m², and 170 W/m². None of those values occur in your Trenbreth diagram of Post #741. I am not going to waste time trying to second guess you.

.

425+170=595

Are you this illiterate in math?