How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[Wuwei]

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...

The SB is a foundation for the toy example. Emission and absorption of vibration modes are the foundation for the GHE.

.

 

[Wuwei]

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....

The energy is not counted twice. See post # 672 again. Where is it counted twice there?.

.

 

[Wuwei]

Precisely where I told you that it goes..

You never told me.

.

 

[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?

.

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...

That's a nice colorful picture.
As I said you don't know where Venus's radiation goes.

.

 

[Wuwei]

425+170=595

Are you this illiterate in math?

You mentioned 425 W/m², 595 W/m², and 170 W/m². None of those values occur in your Trenbreth diagram of Post #741. Why did you post it as if it had no relevance.

I am not interested in your snarky games.

.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

425+170=595

Are you this illiterate in math?

You mentioned 425 W/m², 595 W/m², and 170 W/m². None of those values occur in your Trenbreth diagram of Post #741. Why did you post it as if it had no relevance.

I am not interested in your snarky games.

.

Does the Trenbreth diagram account for 400PPM of CO2? Watt happens to the energy budget at 280PPM, does the budget collapse into nothing?

 

[Wuwei]

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

Does the Trenbreth diagram account for 400PPM of CO2? Watt happens to the energy budget at 280PPM, does the budget collapse into nothing?

I have no idea. I'm not going to worry about it either. The physics of climate science at that level is very complex with huge databases. So I neither believe nor disbelieve it. I am not an avid AGW advocate. I have said that several times on this forum.

You guys can believe what you want about AGW. However when you guys deny proven tenets of basic thermodynamics and make a mockery of it, I will call you out on that. Fake physics will lead you nowhere in trying to justify your position.

.

 

[Billy_Bob]

425+170=595

Are you this illiterate in math?

You mentioned 425 W/m², 595 W/m², and 170 W/m². None of those values occur in your Trenbreth diagram of Post #741. Why did you post it as if it had no relevance.

I am not interested in your snarky games.

.

Lets do this by the numbers;

1. Direct radiation = 170 W/m^2
2. Indirect radiation = 425 W/m^2 (Trenbreth left this off of his diagram on purpose but it was included on his subsequent graphs) You didn't even question Trenbreths lack of careful display.

3. The numbers do not add up. Point radiation is 342 W/m^2 but every single add in his calculations place the down ward radiation well over 700 W/m^2

You tell me about this cartoon and why he left off the 425 Number... Its because his fraud would have been evident before the congressional hearing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Does the Trenbreth diagram account for 400PPM of CO2? Watt happens to the energy budget at 280PPM, does the budget collapse into nothing?

I have no idea. I'm not going to worry about it either. The physics of climate science at that level is very complex with huge databases. So I neither believe nor disbelieve it. I am not an avid AGW advocate. I have said that several times on this forum.

You guys can believe what you want about AGW. However when you guys deny proven tenets of basic thermodynamics and make a mockery of it, I will call you out on that. Fake physics will lead you nowhere in trying to justify your position.

.

So you're confirming that CO2 has no effect whatsoever on the energy budget.

Thank you.

 

[SSDD]

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

Does the Trenbreth diagram account for 400PPM of CO2? Watt happens to the energy budget at 280PPM, does the budget collapse into nothing?

I have no idea. I'm not going to worry about it either. The physics of climate science at that level is very complex with huge databases. So I neither believe nor disbelieve it. I am not an avid AGW advocate. I have said that several times on this forum.

You guys can believe what you want about AGW. However when you guys deny proven tenets of basic thermodynamics and make a mockery of it, I will call you out on that. Fake physics will lead you nowhere in trying to justify your position.

.

So in the end, all you have is an appeal to authority. Sad, but entirely unsurprising.

 

[Wuwei]

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

Does the Trenbreth diagram account for 400PPM of CO2? Watt happens to the energy budget at 280PPM, does the budget collapse into nothing?

I have no idea. I'm not going to worry about it either. The physics of climate science at that level is very complex with huge databases. So I neither believe nor disbelieve it. I am not an avid AGW advocate. I have said that several times on this forum.

You guys can believe what you want about AGW. However when you guys deny proven tenets of basic thermodynamics and make a mockery of it, I will call you out on that. Fake physics will lead you nowhere in trying to justify your position.

So in the end, all you have is an appeal to authority. Sad, but entirely unsurprising.

What appeal to authority do you mean? I appeal to the countless basic experiments done over the last 150 years of basic physics and the resulting experimentally consistent laws and theories.

You deny observed and replicated experiments and observations to the extent that you believe self-contradictory fake physics.
You believe that no process is spontaneous if there was previous input energy of any sort even though the process later spontaneously releases energy without external input. You believe that any configuration that is man-made cannot be spontaneous. That is absolutely contradictory to the definition of spontaneity in physics.

The remarkable contradiction is that you continually cite the second law as

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.​

In your tortured view of physics that statement does not apply to anything on earth since all processes on earth result from prior energy going back to the origin of the solar system.

Try Googling the second law of thermodynamics. You will see most sites define it by the nature of entropy. That law says nothing about one-way radiation being between objects. That is something that you entirely made up. Two way radiation does not violate any laws of physics. Your physics is so tortured that you can't even say where Venus surface radiation goes.

Since this thread is going over the same tedious crap. I will answer any retorts in the special thread created for denying radiation physics.

.

 

[SSDD]

What appeal to authority do you mean? I appeal to the countless basic experiments done over the last 150 years of basic physics and the resulting experimentally consistent laws and theories.

You guys can believe what you want about AGW. However when you guys deny proven tenets of basic thermodynamics and make a mockery of it,....

Do feel free to post any of those experiments that actually demonstrate what you claim...and while I suppose it is pointless to ask...try not to post up the stuff which was only good enough to fool you.

The rest is nothing more than your endlessly tedious reinterpretation of statements that bear no resemblance to the original statement that was made...either you are a hopeless liar or literally unable to read and grasp the meaning of the words.

 

[Wuwei]

What appeal to authority do you mean? I appeal to the countless basic experiments done over the last 150 years of basic physics and the resulting experimentally consistent laws and theories.

You guys can believe what you want about AGW. However when you guys deny proven tenets of basic thermodynamics and make a mockery of it,....

Do feel free to post any of those experiments that actually demonstrate what you claim...and while I suppose it is pointless to ask...try not to post up the stuff which was only good enough to fool you.

The rest is nothing more than your endlessly tedious reinterpretation of statements that bear no resemblance to the original statement that was made...either you are a hopeless liar or literally unable to read and grasp the meaning of the words.

Can't answer my points eh?
I will remind you in Flacaltenn's science denier thread.
That's where your science denial tedium is supposed to go.

.

 

[SSDD]

What appeal to authority do you mean? I appeal to the countless basic experiments done over the last 150 years of basic physics and the resulting experimentally consistent laws and theories.

You guys can believe what you want about AGW. However when you guys deny proven tenets of basic thermodynamics and make a mockery of it,....

Do feel free to post any of those experiments that actually demonstrate what you claim...and while I suppose it is pointless to ask...try not to post up the stuff which was only good enough to fool you.

The rest is nothing more than your endlessly tedious reinterpretation of statements that bear no resemblance to the original statement that was made...either you are a hopeless liar or literally unable to read and grasp the meaning of the words.

Can't answer my points eh?
I will remind you in Flacaltenn's science denier thread.
That's where your science denial tedium is supposed to go.

.

So you can't post up any of these experiments which supposedly prove your beliefs...again...unsurprising....

All of your points have been answered in the dismantling of your precious hypothesis...all the rest has been nothing more than an attempt to divert from your abject failure to defend it...

 

[abu afak]

What appeal to authority do you mean? I appeal to the countless basic experiments done over the last 150 years of basic physics and the resulting experimentally consistent laws and theories.

You deny observed and replicated experiments and observations to the extent that you believe self-contradictory fake physics.
You believe that no process is spontaneous if there was previous input energy of any sort even though the process later spontaneously releases energy without external input. You believe that any configuration that is man-made cannot be spontaneous. That is absolutely contradictory to the definition of spontaneity in physics.

The remarkable contradiction is that you continually cite the second law as

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.​

In your tortured view of physics that statement does not apply to anything on earth since all processes on earth result from prior energy going back to the origin of the solar system.

Try Googling the second law of thermodynamics. You will see most sites define it by the nature of entropy. That law says nothing about one-way radiation being between objects. That is something that you entirely made up. Two way radiation does not violate any laws of physics. Your physics is so tortured that you can't even say where Venus surface radiation goes.

Since this thread is going over the same tedious crap. I will answer any retorts in the special thread created for denying radiation physics.

.

I don't think I've met a single Conspiracist (or GOPer for that matter), who knows what the Appeal to Authority Fallacy is.

Citing an authority who is a Bona Fide expert in the field is not a fallacy.
If I cite Einstein on relativity, that's hardly fallacious... obviously.

The Appeal to Authority Fallacy would be saying "Donald Trump/Kobe Bryant/etc says there is no warming."
As they are mere celebrities/authorities with no expertise in the field.
(Citing a non-climate scientist might be another fallacious use)

`

 

[Wuwei]

I don't think I've met a single Conspiracist (or GOPer for that matter), who knows what the Appeal to Authority Fallacy is.

Citing an authority who is a Bona Fide expert in the field is not a fallacy.
If I cite Einstein on relativity, that's hardly fallacious... obviously.

The Appeal to Authority Fallacy would be saying "Donald Trump/Kobe Bryant/etc says there is no warming."
As they are mere celebrities/authorities with no expertise in the field.
(Citing non-climate scientist might be another fallacious use)

Yeah. Appeal to authority is a last ditch effort when someone has no valid argument. It seems prevalent in the flat-earther types.

 

[SSDD]

I don't think I've met a single Conspiracist (or GOPer for that matter), who knows what the Appeal to Authority Fallacy is.

Citing an authority who is a Bona Fide expert in the field is not a fallacy.
If I cite Einstein on relativity, that's hardly fallacious... obviously.

The Appeal to Authority Fallacy would be saying "Donald Trump/Kobe Bryant/etc says there is no warming."
As they are mere celebrities/authorities with no expertise in the field.
(Citing non-climate scientist might be another fallacious use)

Yeah. Appeal to authority is a last ditch effort when someone has no valid argument. It seems prevalent in the flat-earther types.

And that is where you ended up...how much of a square meter (snicker) of atmosphere that is actually capable of radiating did you say is radiating according to the S-B law?

 

[Wuwei]

And that is where you ended up...how much of a square meter (snicker) of atmosphere that is actually capable of radiating did you say is radiating according to the S-B law?

If you want to continue misinterpreting the slab atmosphere example, take it to the Official Deniers thread made just for you.

 

[SSDD]

And that is where you ended up...how much of a square meter (snicker) of atmosphere that is actually capable of radiating did you say is radiating according to the S-B law?

If you want to continue misinterpreting the slab atmosphere example, take it to the Official Deniers thread made just for you.

How much of a square meter of atmosphere, if there were such a thing is even capable of radiating? How much of that area is actually radiating once you account for conduction and convection?

It is the basis of the greenhouse effect...answer the question.

And how much of it does the SB law assume is radiating?

 

[Wuwei]

How much of a square meter of atmosphere, if there were such a thing is even capable of radiating? How much of that area is actually radiating once you account for conduction and convection?

It is the basis of the greenhouse effect...answer the question.

That is a good question, and worthy of looking into.

Probability of CO2 emission from excited state (with no collision)
= 1 / 30,000

Number of air molecules per m³ = 2.53 10²⁵ (Use Avogadro's number)
CO2 density: 400 ppm
Number of CO2 molecules per m³ @ 400ppm = 1.01 10²²

Number in 15 micron excitation state 1.01 10²² x 2/9 = 0.244 10²² (2/9 comes from Equipartition Principle)

Relaxation time for CO2 vibration 6 microSec.
There will be roughly 0.244 10²² molecules emitting 15 micron radiation every 6 microSec (6.0 10⁻⁶ sec)
Number of photons per second from CO2 = number x probability / 6.0 10⁻⁶
= 0.244 10²² / ( 30,000 x 6.0 10⁻⁶ ) = 1.35 10²² emissions / sec

Energy of 15 micron photon = 1.3 10⁻²⁰ J
Joules per second of 15 micron photons = 1.35 10²² x 1.3 10⁻²⁰ J/s = 1.75 x 10² W

Conclusion:
So even though the collision probability is very high and there are only 400 ppm of CO2, the radiation density is around 175 Watts radiating within a cubic meter at STP. That doesn't count what CO2 absorbs from the earth's total 396 W/ m² radiation.

.