how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[flacaltenn]

OK .. Really don't have time to protect the honor of Radiation Physics here..

Gslack is rejecting textbook pages because of where they appeared. SSDD has TOO many technical issues to deal with including a rejection that CO2 has any heat carrying capability at all. (I've done that one with him before)..

So new tactic... YOU TWO need to provide YOUR understanding of the following real world examples..

1) A lot of my work is in cameras INCLUDING thermal IR.. So I'd be out of biz if IR photons only traveled to cooler objects..

Just bought another Lab grade IR thermometer.. (needed one with smaller field of view for small electronic components).. I bring the sensor to room temperature.. Point it at leak in the window sill.. You telling me that I can't READ 12degF below room temp because the "photons aren't gonna travel from a cooler to warmer object"????

2) I place 2 identical metal bars on strings in a vacuum container with a uniform constant heat source outside. They come to equilibrium temp at 100DegF... Does that mean they don't radiate EM IR photons anymore at each other.. ((And indeed uniformly out in all directions?)) So if I point my IR reader at them --- they somehow are not radiating black bodies anymore? Or is the distribution of their radiation limited to an inate guidance system that measures the temperature of EVERY OBJECT in their path?

I'm waiting to be entertained... LOL

Dream on flac. They don't have a coherent understanding of how things work, only talking points and ad home.

You radiating at me man??
What? You think you're warmer or something?


Here's what I believe Ian.. It's the way that academia lays out thermo in the classroom. The introduction includes the laws and makes a passing reference to radiative heating and then proceeds to finish the course talking almost EXCLUSIVELY about conduction and convection.. It's because Electro-Magnetic propagation is ANOTHER course.

Maybe you'll find a whole chapter on black bodies and Planck and Boltzmann. But the point is not stressed about the equations of transfer between radiating bodies.. (It's also too complex to get rigorous about the field of view geometries and all that)

And so most folks leave with the belief that ALL heat transfer proceeds along the lines of thermal conductivities of materials and unidirectional thermal differences..

 

[flacaltenn]

This is a bit more rigorus presentation of why Barker's 2002 attempt is wrong.

Let TN be night temp and TD be day temp. *

d is the amount added during the day. Let*ΔC be the little bit more from additional CO2

So, on day 1,*

TN1 *and TD1=TN1+d** TI=*TN1/(TN+d+ΔC)

That is, the day time temp is up by d, due to day time heating plus the additional amount due to that *dau increase in CO2. *TI is Barkers "thermal inertia" measure.

The next day,*

TN2=TN1+ΔC *and TD2=(TN2+d+ΔC)=TN1+d+2ΔC

The second night is a bit warmer due to the day's additional CO2 warmth. The daytime is the accumulation of the two days additional CO2 plus the daytime warmth d.

TI2=(TN1+ΔC)/(TN1+d+2ΔC)

TNn=(TN1+(n-1)ΣΔC)/(TN1+d+(n)ΣΔC)

ΔC is very very small, so for

TNn=(TN1+(n-1)ΣΔC)/(TN1+d+(n-1)ΣΔC)

Even*(n-1)ΣΔC is really small, amounting to no more than degree over decades compared to the day time and night time temp in the desert. Compared to TN and TD, it is swamped out.

Essentially,*

TNn=(TN1)/(TN1+d)

Barker 2002 doesn't present his raw data. *But, we can use a couple of example numbers that are reasonable. *Let's say 30F and 120F. Over the course of 1931 to 1995, the average change in temp due to CO2 was, let's say 2 degrees.

So ΔC is 2/(1995-1931)=.031F per year, .0026F per month and .0000856F per day, for 64 years, 768 months or 23360 days.

Using*TNn=(TN1+(n-1)ΣΔC)/(TN1+d+(n-1)ΣΔC)

d is the difference between day and night, 120-30=90.*n is 768 months.



TN1 is 30, TI1 is 30/120=.25

TN768=(30+2)/(120+2)=.262

Barkers TI changes by .112 over the course of 64 years. *Meanwhile, the precipitation index he uses has day to dayswings of .20.

The othe issue is fairly simple. *He never does a multivariate on the TI to both CO2 and his precipitation index. *Had he, he may have very well found a better fit with both than either alone.

All he has managed to demonstrate is the obvious, that weather is more variable than climate. *But we already know that.

A New Metric to Detect CO2 Greenhouse Effect* Applied To Some New Mexico Weather Data

Nope... No one is silly enough to do this "day to day".. You should really go get a job that you can do without faking it.. This is pretty pathetic.. PLEASE stop embarrassing yourself.. The paper is not that important for you to commit felony fraud..

Of course he does a separation on TI for both CO2 and Precipt. That's part of the paper... The source of his "raw data" is ALSO disclosed in the paper..

You have a lot of time to waste.. I don't...

 

[IanC]

No one seems to be stepping up with a simple explanation describing why objects emit radiation according to their temp. Is this a weak spot in many people's thermo understanding?

Single molecules have favoured absorption/emission but for temp related radiation there is a smooth Planck curve. This is indicative of a different process. And is one of the reasons why the SLoT does not cover individual atomic events..

That is a quantum physics issue. At some level, you just have to take the empirical evidence as a postulate.

It certainly is QM issue but that does not preclude a simple one sentence explanation of where the planck radiation comes from.

 

[itfitzme]

Hahahaha. Now your bizarre interpretation of the SLoT is overtrumping the distributive law of mathematics? Hubris, perhaps?

It is unfortunate, for him, that Hyperphysics doesn't make any overt statement of the definition for a system. Every thermo text does, in the first section od the first chapter. Hyperphysics does, early in the presentation, use a glass of water as am example, but that alone is to weak to imply that everything following applies only to glass of water size objects.

I've presented a few thermo quotes that do say the system is macroscopic. No source says otherwise. They either mention macroscopic or they neglects to mentiom it at all. That should give one pause.

Short of getting Hyperphysics to edit their page, I don't sew how SSaDhD's ever going to make the connection.

The thread has gone on and on about this for days, an issue that would have been resolved in a minute's time in a course semester. At this rate, what should take 3 months x 4 weeks x 3 days x 1 hour will be dragging out for years.

Seems to me, he's basically screwed.

While SSDD has a blind sop on the SLoT, you have blind spot on correlation/causation and the issue of undisclosed variables. How long will it take to bring you around? Hahaha.

I've got no blind spot. I am well aware that there is a 5% probability that the correlation happened by random chance. I am well aware that there is a .0000099% probability that it is pixie dust causing the issue.

I also know that the temp goes up and it is highly correlated to all known factors. The likely hood of it being due so some unknown factor is not worth the bet. We don't bet on black swans. That's the nice thing about it. We go with what we've got until something proves otherwise. And so far, nothing proves otherwise.

A 5% probability of not doesn't round up to a 100% probability of never, can't be. A 95% probability rounds up to always, must be.

If I see some guy, walking by my parked car, repeatedly looking inside and around, I don't take that to be coincidence, even though it could be he just happened to be going back and forth to the store. I take it as certain that he's looking to break the window and steal my briefcase. And I can guarantee that everyone who falls into the denier category would do the same. In day to dayl life, they go with far less certianty. Then, when it's about AWG, suddenly they are all "correlation doesn't prove causality".

 

[itfitzme]

No one seems to be stepping up with a simple explanation describing why objects emit radiation according to their temp. Is this a weak spot in many people's thermo understanding?

Single molecules have favoured absorption/emission but for temp related radiation there is a smooth Planck curve. This is indicative of a different process. And is one of the reasons why the SLoT does not cover individual atomic events..

That is a quantum physics issue. At some level, you just have to take the empirical evidence as a postulate.

It certainly is QM issue but that does not preclude a simple one sentence explanation of where the planck radiation comes from.

I'm sure if anyone knew, they'd say so. When you find out, let us know. I've never seen a need for quantum physics. And as far as I'm aware, Feynman would simply say that's just what happens. As one person put it, "If I knew that, I'd write a book". But not knowing why photons leave when the leave, in the quantity that they leave, doesn't preclude that you know that they do.

It seems nice enough that quantum physic and relativity explain emission line broadening and shift. That seems to be more significant.

If you do find it, let me know. It may answer a few questions that have annoyed me. It could be so simple as that, according to the Heisenberg uncertainty, as the energy level goes up, the electron is simply more likely to be in a broader location. As that location gets wider, the likelihood of it not coming back increases. But, hey, I'm just synthesizing from first princilples. Call it a hypothesis. This leads to considering the various complementary quantities for Hiesenberg, beyond momentum and location.

 

[IanC]

OK .. Really don't have time to protect the honor of Radiation Physics here..

Gslack is rejecting textbook pages because of where they appeared. SSDD has TOO many technical issues to deal with including a rejection that CO2 has any heat carrying capability at all. (I've done that one with him before)..

So new tactic... YOU TWO need to provide YOUR understanding of the following real world examples..

1) A lot of my work is in cameras INCLUDING thermal IR.. So I'd be out of biz if IR photons only traveled to cooler objects..

Just bought another Lab grade IR thermometer.. (needed one with smaller field of view for small electronic components).. I bring the sensor to room temperature.. Point it at leak in the window sill.. You telling me that I can't READ 12degF below room temp because the "photons aren't gonna travel from a cooler to warmer object"????

2) I place 2 identical metal bars on strings in a vacuum container with a uniform constant heat source outside. They come to equilibrium temp at 100DegF... Does that mean they don't radiate EM IR photons anymore at each other.. ((And indeed uniformly out in all directions?)) So if I point my IR reader at them --- they somehow are not radiating black bodies anymore? Or is the distribution of their radiation limited to an inate guidance system that measures the temperature of EVERY OBJECT in their path?

I'm waiting to be entertained... LOL

Dream on flac. They don't have a coherent understanding of how things work, only talking points and ad home.

You radiating at me man??
What? You think you're warmer or something?


Here's what I believe Ian.. It's the way that academia lays out thermo in the classroom. The introduction includes the laws and makes a passing reference to radiative heating and then proceeds to finish the course talking almost EXCLUSIVELY about conduction and convection.. It's because Electro-Magnetic propagation is ANOTHER course.

Maybe you'll find a whole chapter on black bodies and Planck and Boltzmann. But the point is not stressed about the equations of transfer between radiating bodies.. (It's also too complex to get rigorous about the field of view geometries and all that)

And so most folks leave with the belief that ALL heat transfer proceeds along the lines of thermal conductivities of materials and unidirectional thermal differences..

conduction is markedly more efficient at distributing heat than radiation is. I have often wondered what proportion of conduction is actually radiation (of course that would depend on the material as well).

Planck radiation is directly proportional to temperature, which itself is a measurement of kinetic energy. collisions between the constituents of any gas, liquid or solid are the origin of Planck radiation and that is why they are somewhat normally distributed (I cannot remember the name of the curve which is truncated on one side). as long as there is kinetic energy and a density thick enough to allow collisions, there will be kinetic energy transformed into radiative energy that allows energy to escape and temperature to drop. individual atomic absorptions/emissions may be involved with this transfer of kinetic to radiative energy but a collision between two ground state molecules will still emit radiation. a non-groundstate molecule may or may not add its electron state energy into the collision, or it may re-emit its electron state energy as allowed by orbital drops or bond shifts, before a collision. kinetic energy transformation is not a standard absorption/emission event that is governed by QM.

temperature is the average kinetic energy of the constituents of an object, some are faster some slower. even in a hot object two slow molecules may collide with a low energy photon(s) emitted. even in a cool object two fast molecules can collide, emitting a much higher energy photon(s).

for any one-to-one transfer of radiative energy between two objects there is a chance that the lower temp object may in fact send a higher energy photon. but because hotter means higher average kinetic energy, therefore higher average thermal radiation, AND more radiation per unit time, the transfer of energy always goes from hot to cold.

 

[SSDD]

[]

Hahahaha. Now your bizarre interpretation of the SLoT is overtrumping the distributive law of mathematics? Hubris, perhaps?

Why would you apply any property to an steady elegant equation?

 

[flacaltenn]

Dream on flac. They don't have a coherent understanding of how things work, only talking points and ad home.

You radiating at me man??
What? You think you're warmer or something?


Here's what I believe Ian.. It's the way that academia lays out thermo in the classroom. The introduction includes the laws and makes a passing reference to radiative heating and then proceeds to finish the course talking almost EXCLUSIVELY about conduction and convection.. It's because Electro-Magnetic propagation is ANOTHER course.

Maybe you'll find a whole chapter on black bodies and Planck and Boltzmann. But the point is not stressed about the equations of transfer between radiating bodies.. (It's also too complex to get rigorous about the field of view geometries and all that)

And so most folks leave with the belief that ALL heat transfer proceeds along the lines of thermal conductivities of materials and unidirectional thermal differences..

conduction is markedly more efficient at distributing heat than radiation is. I have often wondered what proportion of conduction is actually radiation (of course that would depend on the material as well).

Planck radiation is directly proportional to temperature, which itself is a measurement of kinetic energy. collisions between the constituents of any gas, liquid or solid are the origin of Planck radiation and that is why they are somewhat normally distributed (I cannot remember the name of the curve which is truncated on one side). as long as there is kinetic energy and a density thick enough to allow collisions, there will be kinetic energy transformed into radiative energy that allows energy to escape and temperature to drop. individual atomic absorptions/emissions may be involved with this transfer of kinetic to radiative energy but a collision between two ground state molecules will still emit radiation. a non-groundstate molecule may or may not add its electron state energy into the collision, or it may re-emit its electron state energy as allowed by orbital drops or bond shifts, before a collision. kinetic energy transformation is not a standard absorption/emission event that is governed by QM.

temperature is the average kinetic energy of the constituents of an object, some are faster some slower. even in a hot object two slow molecules may collide with a low energy photon(s) emitted. even in a cool object two fast molecules can collide, emitting a much higher energy photon(s).

for any one-to-one transfer of radiative energy between two objects there is a chance that the lower temp object may in fact send a higher energy photon. but because hotter means higher average kinetic energy, therefore higher average thermal radiation, AND more radiation per unit time, the transfer of energy always goes from hot to cold.

Yep.. when the Laws were written, they were written only to explain the GROSS transfer of energy.. and the GENERAL progression of entropy. You are absolutely correct about the underlying statistics of conduction..

Wish I had snipped an article talking about violations of the 2nd Law that occur when two objects are CLOSE in thermal gradient. Or when the amounts of energy are extremely small.

 

[flacaltenn]

It is unfortunate, for him, that Hyperphysics doesn't make any overt statement of the definition for a system. Every thermo text does, in the first section od the first chapter. Hyperphysics does, early in the presentation, use a glass of water as am example, but that alone is to weak to imply that everything following applies only to glass of water size objects.

I've presented a few thermo quotes that do say the system is macroscopic. No source says otherwise. They either mention macroscopic or they neglects to mentiom it at all. That should give one pause.

Short of getting Hyperphysics to edit their page, I don't sew how SSaDhD's ever going to make the connection.

The thread has gone on and on about this for days, an issue that would have been resolved in a minute's time in a course semester. At this rate, what should take 3 months x 4 weeks x 3 days x 1 hour will be dragging out for years.

Seems to me, he's basically screwed.

While SSDD has a blind sop on the SLoT, you have blind spot on correlation/causation and the issue of undisclosed variables. How long will it take to bring you around? Hahaha.

I've got no blind spot. I am well aware that there is a 5% probability that the correlation happened by random chance. I am well aware that there is a .0000099% probability that it is pixie dust causing the issue.

I also know that the temp goes up and it is highly correlated to all known factors. The likely hood of it being due so some unknown factor is not worth the bet. We don't bet on black swans. That's the nice thing about it. We go with what we've got until something proves otherwise. And so far, nothing proves otherwise.

A 5% probability of not doesn't round up to a 100% probability of never, can't be. A 95% probability rounds up to always, must be.

If I see some guy, walking by my parked car, repeatedly looking inside and around, I don't take that to be coincidence, even though it could be he just happened to be going back and forth to the store. I take it as certain that he's looking to break the window and steal my briefcase. And I can guarantee that everyone who falls into the denier category would do the same. In day to dayl life, they go with far less certianty. Then, when it's about AWG, suddenly they are all "correlation doesn't prove causality".

"I am well aware that there is a 5% probability that the correlation happened by random chance."

No you're not.. There is no probability of causality attributed to the mere SHAPE of something. You need to have a math relationship between them based on reasonable mechanics of the relationship..

In truth, correlation is used mostly to FIND relationships hidden by noise and variance. NOT to assign causality...

There are THOUSANDS of TRUE functions that are perfectly 1st order linear.. They correlate with each other 100%.. That doesn't mean they are all even REMOTELY an explanation for each other.

Same for 2nd order functions. Etc.. Etc.. Etc...

You don't even know from a mere correlation which is the DEPENDENT and which is the INDEPENDENT variable..

Disclaimer..
<<When you get further in Signal Processing theory -- you encounter something called the "time-bandwidth" product.. It's a measure of the complexity of the signal.. The amount of information content in the signal.. If you find correlations between high TimeBandwidth product processes --- the LIKELIHOOD of a causal relationship DOES rise.. Unfortunately --- YOUR signal is one of the weakest punkiest ones on the planet and carries VERY little complexity>>

You're right on the cusp of being tuned out.. I SENSE you want to learn very badly.. And you're TRYING --- the only reasons you are not the 2nd USMB poster I have on ignore...

 

[IanC]

It is unfortunate, for him, that Hyperphysics doesn't make any overt statement of the definition for a system. Every thermo text does, in the first section od the first chapter. Hyperphysics does, early in the presentation, use a glass of water as am example, but that alone is to weak to imply that everything following applies only to glass of water size objects.

I've presented a few thermo quotes that do say the system is macroscopic. No source says otherwise. They either mention macroscopic or they neglects to mentiom it at all. That should give one pause.

Short of getting Hyperphysics to edit their page, I don't sew how SSaDhD's ever going to make the connection.

The thread has gone on and on about this for days, an issue that would have been resolved in a minute's time in a course semester. At this rate, what should take 3 months x 4 weeks x 3 days x 1 hour will be dragging out for years.

Seems to me, he's basically screwed.

While SSDD has a blind sop on the SLoT, you have blind spot on correlation/causation and the issue of undisclosed variables. How long will it take to bring you around? Hahaha.

I've got no blind spot. I am well aware that there is a 5% probability that the correlation happened by random chance. I am well aware that there is a .0000099% probability that it is pixie dust causing the issue.

I also know that the temp goes up and it is highly correlated to all known factors. The likely hood of it being due so some unknown factor is not worth the bet. We don't bet on black swans. That's the nice thing about it. We go with what we've got until something proves otherwise. And so far, nothing proves otherwise.

A 5% probability of not doesn't round up to a 100% probability of never, can't be. A 95% probability rounds up to always, must be.

If I see some guy, walking by my parked car, repeatedly looking inside and around, I don't take that to be coincidence, even though it could be he just happened to be going back and forth to the store. I take it as certain that he's looking to break the window and steal my briefcase. And I can guarantee that everyone who falls into the denier category would do the same. In day to dayl life, they go with far less certianty. Then, when it's about AWG, suddenly they are all "correlation doesn't prove causality".

let's just look at two factors, solar and CO2.

people have always know that the sun is the biggest factor in determining the conditions on earth. once Hershel noticed there was a correlation between sunspots and wheat production we started to look for ways of quantifying it. proxy records suggest that there is a 0.7 correlation over the last few thousand years, which in turn suggests half the variance. lately we have better equipment to measure the solar input but typically just use the general TSI. we do not know the temperature neutral point of TSI. it is likely that the majority of the 20th century was above that point on average, leading to rising temps. in my own opinion an extra watt of TSI is much more capable of actually changing terrestrial conditions because it is highly ordered and high energy, as opposed to the nearly useless backradiation that cannot do much of anything besides counteract outgoing surface radiation.

CO2 has a poor correlation over long periods, eg the last 5000 years has seen a slow drop in temps even as CO2 has slowly increased. of course mankind has disturbed the natural amount of CO2 and that is a wildcard. even looking at the correlation of CO2/temp is difficult because temperature is also affecting CO2 concentration by causing it to be released from the oceans.

when you, itfitzme, take a simple correlation between CO2 and temp, but only over the last hundred years, and declare that it is responsible for 78.xxx percent of the temperature rise, you are fooling yourself and doing a disservice to others by saying your incomplete understanding is true because you can put math equations on the table.

there are many other factors besides solar and CO2. water in its many forms being one of the important ones. when you discount the other factors, and then compound your error by adding the discounted variance from the other factors into the CO2 variance it is properly called fraud.

 

[IanC]

[]

Hahahaha. Now your bizarre interpretation of the SLoT is overtrumping the distributive law of mathematics? Hubris, perhaps?

Why would you apply any property to an steady elegant equation?

physics is 75% manipulation of mathematical equations to understand the relationships between things. are you against the rearranging and replacing of equal terms for the equation F=ma ?

why are you upset with mathematics? I don't separate the terms for backradiation except to quantify them. they are both happening simultaneously. it is only people like you who declare that back radiation cannot be quantified (actually you say it doesn't exist) but then refuse to follow the consequences of denying back radiation to its logical conclusions. if the surface is emitting 400w/m2 but only gaining 160w/m2 from the sun....

 

[gslack]

For Gslack and SSDD..

Certainly -- when you come in from the cold winter and experience a +20F boost in ambient temp -- that boost certainly can't warm a body surface that's already +25F above the ambient?

Skin 90F Room 67F Outside 47F

You were COOLING outside FASTER than inside. Assume there is no convection or conduction. JUST radiative heating from the room.. (minute amount of double paned glass with good deep IR transmission) Same effect. You will COOL slower. Your skin will EVENTUALLY assume a new equilibrium say 95F.

You'll say the body supplies the heat.. Of course. Just like the daily pumping of solar energy the earth surface gets. But the body LOSES heat at lower rate --- EVEN IN the proximity of a colder radiative mass.

As far as what the textbooks say.. Check out ScienceofDoom.. Get this from another skeptic..

Science of doom? LOL, the Clone to spencer's shtick? No thanks...

So you're rejecting the website of a guy who is there PRIMARILY because he's an AGW skeptic. Real scientists don't reject sources until they've bludgeoned them to death a couple times. And even then -- we take the time to knock down particularly scurulous assertions.

If you want to regurgitate the same argument's spencer and CO. use, it's a silly and tired strategy.. One that Ian tries...

Once again(like Ian and spencer) you are trying to use the properties of an insulator to explain backradiation warming the surface further, and it's been gone over again and again. It's a bogus claim, that relies on a theoretical concept of actions at the atomic and sub-atomic levels. A theoretical concept which has not and cannot be proven any place other than an equation.

Not all.. Doesn't depend on sub-atomic tricks. Only an understanding of the diff between thermal flow thru conduction and convection and thermal flow thru radiation of EM waves. I've gotten you that far in previous posts only to have you come back and mix up thermal radiation with "molecular densities".. Has nothing to do with materials during propagation. (unless it's an EM absorber)

Ian cited one of spencers arguments recently. The man tried to use an insulated house to make the same claim your site just tried. The problem was he said the insulation made the house warmer. No it didn't. Insulation allowed the house to reach a certain temperature faster and more efficiently than it would have otherwise because it slowed heat loss. Once the temp in the house hit the proper temp the thermostat was set to, it shut off. Minus insulation, it took a lot longer. Now we here on earth have a thermostat as well. it's called day and night.

Exactly.. You're on the brink of breakthru here. But you use the wrong analogy. We have no control over the thermostat here on Earth. It is a Pulse Width Modulated type of thermal excitation with a FIXED thermostat setting. So that adding a layer of R16 Pink Panther insulation will result in a HIGHER equilibrium solution for the surface temp..

Now,when we get a realistic energy budget based on a full day/night cycle and not based on a flat disc earth bathed in 24/7 twilight, you will see that backradiation is unneeded..

You rejected the explanation I gave above INCLUDING A PAGE from a standard Thermo TEXTBOOK.. Are you saying the TEXTBOOK is wrong? ((Attrib for the page is on the original weblink))..

DUDE your link was to science of doom website. Don't even try and claim it to a textbook it's right there in your link....

Source aside, just because something radiates to to another, warmer object, doesn't mean it can effect change in that object.. What part of this is escaping you?

You assume that if it radiates, it must effect change in a warmer object. When there is no evidence, even in your links, that any such thing must occur...

GH gases are according to theory, transparent to short-wave EM radiation from the sun. IF so then in effect, although the radiation is coming in and passing through the GH gases, that EM radiation somehow does not effect change in the GH gases...You believe that, but refuse to accept it when it's coming from GH gases to the warmer surface??? WTH??

You keep trying to repeat the same thing and sidestep what I say... We do have a thermostat here. A natural one. Day and night, the seasons, solar variance, distance tothe sun, and the fact that GH gases are(thanks to convection) a lousy insulator but a very good method of transferring heat away from a source(convection again).

Which sounds more realistic to you.. Sun radiates to the surface, warms the surface, the surface heat warms the lower atmosphere, convection takes over the warmer atmosphere rises up away from the heat source, and then cools in the process until cold enough and starts to fall back towards the surface, where it collides with the rising warmer air and warms a bit until it gets close enough to the surface again to start the process over again.

OR, your theory that the sun warms the surface which warms the lower atmosphere, which in turn warms the surface further due to back-radiation...

LOL, I'll take my theory all day.. Your's is an attempt to justify a theoretical concept of GH effect, where none is required, Mine is a realistic portrayal of how convection and the atmosphere on this planet works.

It may be statistically correct to assume some form of back-radiation at work, but it is realistically incorrect to assume it can effect noticeable change in it's warmer source.

Call it "net flow" till you are blue in the face, it doesn't change a thing. Be it net flow or absolute flow, the fact remains it's still a positive flow warmer to cooler, and there is no physical evidence to support any incidental back flow effecting noticeable change in the heat source.

 

[gslack]

[]

Hahahaha. Now your bizarre interpretation of the SLoT is overtrumping the distributive law of mathematics? Hubris, perhaps?

Why would you apply any property to an steady elegant equation?

physics is 75% manipulation of mathematical equations to understand the relationships between things. are you against the rearranging and replacing of equal terms for the equation F=ma ?

why are you upset with mathematics? I don't separate the terms for backradiation except to quantify them. they are both happening simultaneously. it is only people like you who declare that back radiation cannot be quantified (actually you say it doesn't exist) but then refuse to follow the consequences of denying back radiation to its logical conclusions. if the surface is emitting 400w/m2 but only gaining 160w/m2 from the sun....

LOL, the idea is fine if the people doing the manipulations are trustworthy. When they are not we have concepts like this AGW nonsense. Which you yourself have agreed the numbers have been manipulated badly...

BTW. prove your numbers.. Prove the 400w/m2 and the 160w/m2... No interpretations based on theoretical mathematics, show actual proof that those numbers are indeed accurate.. See the problem yet? You are willing to bet the farm on an unproven theory, simply because it's been right on some other things, and despite the fact it cannot explain many real world phenomenon.. You need to get a grip and realize the difference between theory and fact,and realize most of what we actually know for certain is due to real world experience and not numbers..

 

[itfitzme]

Poisson. The variance is the square root of the mean. I'm pretty sure it falls out of a normal distibution probability of exiting or entry. I have never bothered to derive it though. We get it in queing theory, where normal distribution of people coming into the teller lines yields a poisson distribution because, obviously, you can't have negative people in line. In the same way, we don't get negative number of photons exiting a body.

 

[itfitzme]

While SSDD has a blind sop on the SLoT, you have blind spot on correlation/causation and the issue of undisclosed variables. How long will it take to bring you around? Hahaha.

I've got no blind spot. I am well aware that there is a 5% probability that the correlation happened by random chance. I am well aware that there is a .0000099% probability that it is pixie dust causing the issue.

I also know that the temp goes up and it is highly correlated to all known factors. The likely hood of it being due so some unknown factor is not worth the bet. We don't bet on black swans. That's the nice thing about it. We go with what we've got until something proves otherwise. And so far, nothing proves otherwise.

A 5% probability of not doesn't round up to a 100% probability of never, can't be. A 95% probability rounds up to always, must be.

If I see some guy, walking by my parked car, repeatedly looking inside and around, I don't take that to be coincidence, even though it could be he just happened to be going back and forth to the store. I take it as certain that he's looking to break the window and steal my briefcase. And I can guarantee that everyone who falls into the denier category would do the same. In day to dayl life, they go with far less certianty. Then, when it's about AWG, suddenly they are all "correlation doesn't prove causality".

let's just look at two factors, solar and CO2.

people have always know that the sun is the biggest factor in determining the conditions on earth. once Hershel noticed there was a correlation between sunspots and wheat production we started to look for ways of quantifying it. proxy records suggest that there is a 0.7 correlation over the last few thousand years, which in turn suggests half the variance. lately we have better equipment to measure the solar input but typically just use the general TSI. we do not know the temperature neutral point of TSI. it is likely that the majority of the 20th century was above that point on average, leading to rising temps. in my own opinion an extra watt of TSI is much more capable of actually changing terrestrial conditions because it is highly ordered and high energy, as opposed to the nearly useless backradiation that cannot do much of anything besides counteract outgoing surface radiation.

CO2 has a poor correlation over long periods, eg the last 5000 years has seen a slow drop in temps even as CO2 has slowly increased. of course mankind has disturbed the natural amount of CO2 and that is a wildcard. even looking at the correlation of CO2/temp is difficult because temperature is also affecting CO2 concentration by causing it to be released from the oceans.

when you, itfitzme, take a simple correlation between CO2 and temp, but only over the last hundred years, and declare that it is responsible for 78.xxx percent of the temperature rise, you are fooling yourself and doing a disservice to others by saying your incomplete understanding is true because you can put math equations on the table.

there are many other factors besides solar and CO2. water in its many forms being one of the important ones. when you discount the other factors, and then compound your error by adding the discounted variance from the other factors into the CO2 variance it is properly called fraud.

No I'm not. I am recognizing that the 5000 year curve has discontinuities. Thr discontinuities indicated that something significamt changed. I'm doing a piecewise analysis based on recognizining where and what significantly changed.

I can do the same thing with gasoline prices. Real dollar gasoline prices were basically flat, going up with inflation, until about 1998. That was when China started ramping up in GDP growth on exports, production fueled by using fossil fuels. It is just that simple.

And I didn't stop at CO2 with 74%, I added in solar, el nino, volcano, sulfates, and ozone. As expected, with a muktivariate analysis, the R^2 for CO2 diminishes, as does the residual variance, as the others start picking up more and more of the variability in anomoly.

Calling it fraud deserves a fuck you.

I didn't charge money. It is how it is done, standard practice, and it is right. I haven't done the confidence interval for the slope. You can do that yourself. Like I said, I didn't get paid ti do it.

So fuck you. Or are we to accuse SSaDhD of fraud and lying for completely mangling SLoT?

You can bang your head against the thermo and quantum physics wall till the end of time, and you're not gonna get there. All your gonna do is resolve out further the detailed explaination as to exactly what the regression coefficients really are. And given the huge nature of the global climate, you are still going to have to come back to statistical regression, exactly like the IPCC has in their expression of climate sensitivity and radiative forcing.

 

[flacaltenn]

Science of doom? LOL, the Clone to spencer's shtick? No thanks...

So you're rejecting the website of a guy who is there PRIMARILY because he's an AGW skeptic. Real scientists don't reject sources until they've bludgeoned them to death a couple times. And even then -- we take the time to knock down particularly scurulous assertions.

If you want to regurgitate the same argument's spencer and CO. use, it's a silly and tired strategy.. One that Ian tries...

Once again(like Ian and spencer) you are trying to use the properties of an insulator to explain backradiation warming the surface further, and it's been gone over again and again. It's a bogus claim, that relies on a theoretical concept of actions at the atomic and sub-atomic levels. A theoretical concept which has not and cannot be proven any place other than an equation.

Not all.. Doesn't depend on sub-atomic tricks. Only an understanding of the diff between thermal flow thru conduction and convection and thermal flow thru radiation of EM waves. I've gotten you that far in previous posts only to have you come back and mix up thermal radiation with "molecular densities".. Has nothing to do with materials during propagation. (unless it's an EM absorber)

Ian cited one of spencers arguments recently. The man tried to use an insulated house to make the same claim your site just tried. The problem was he said the insulation made the house warmer. No it didn't. Insulation allowed the house to reach a certain temperature faster and more efficiently than it would have otherwise because it slowed heat loss. Once the temp in the house hit the proper temp the thermostat was set to, it shut off. Minus insulation, it took a lot longer. Now we here on earth have a thermostat as well. it's called day and night.

Exactly.. You're on the brink of breakthru here. But you use the wrong analogy. We have no control over the thermostat here on Earth. It is a Pulse Width Modulated type of thermal excitation with a FIXED thermostat setting. So that adding a layer of R16 Pink Panther insulation will result in a HIGHER equilibrium solution for the surface temp..

Now,when we get a realistic energy budget based on a full day/night cycle and not based on a flat disc earth bathed in 24/7 twilight, you will see that backradiation is unneeded..

You rejected the explanation I gave above INCLUDING A PAGE from a standard Thermo TEXTBOOK.. Are you saying the TEXTBOOK is wrong? ((Attrib for the page is on the original weblink))..

DUDE your link was to science of doom website. Don't even try and claim it to a textbook it's right there in your link....

Source aside, just because something radiates to to another, warmer object, doesn't mean it can effect change in that object.. What part of this is escaping you?

You assume that if it radiates, it must effect change in a warmer object. When there is no evidence, even in your links, that any such thing must occur...

GH gases are according to theory, transparent to short-wave EM radiation from the sun. IF so then in effect, although the radiation is coming in and passing through the GH gases, that EM radiation somehow does not effect change in the GH gases...You believe that, but refuse to accept it when it's coming from GH gases to the warmer surface??? WTH??

You keep trying to repeat the same thing and sidestep what I say... We do have a thermostat here. A natural one. Day and night, the seasons, solar variance, distance tothe sun, and the fact that GH gases are(thanks to convection) a lousy insulator but a very good method of transferring heat away from a source(convection again).

Which sounds more realistic to you.. Sun radiates to the surface, warms the surface, the surface heat warms the lower atmosphere, convection takes over the warmer atmosphere rises up away from the heat source, and then cools in the process until cold enough and starts to fall back towards the surface, where it collides with the rising warmer air and warms a bit until it gets close enough to the surface again to start the process over again.

OR, your theory that the sun warms the surface which warms the lower atmosphere, which in turn warms the surface further due to back-radiation...

LOL, I'll take my theory all day.. Your's is an attempt to justify a theoretical concept of GH effect, where none is required, Mine is a realistic portrayal of how convection and the atmosphere on this planet works.

It may be statistically correct to assume some form of back-radiation at work, but it is realistically incorrect to assume it can effect noticeable change in it's warmer source.

Call it "net flow" till you are blue in the face, it doesn't change a thing. Be it net flow or absolute flow, the fact remains it's still a positive flow warmer to cooler, and there is no physical evidence to support any incidental back flow effecting noticeable change in the heat source.

I guess you'll just have to complete life with a bogus view of radiative heating. You'll survive.. But there's 2 things I need to know.. So that I can judge your future posts on these topics...

1) There was a TEXTBOOK PAGE with an appropriate attribution in that weblink...
I'll gladly verify the page exists in the original book if you tell me WHY it's wrong.. That was a pretty sketchy deflection of evidence..

DID YOU NOT SEE the Title of the Textbook at the bottom of the Xerox copy???

2) Why did you elect NOT to explain the 2 physical challenges I gave to you and SSDD back about 10 posts ago?? The IR thermometer reading colder objects.. And the 2 metal bars at exactly 100degF? Give me a reading on those using GSLack physics will ya??

So then we're done and how we finish sets the tone for future discussions..

 

[IanC]

Why would you apply any property to an steady elegant equation?

physics is 75% manipulation of mathematical equations to understand the relationships between things. are you against the rearranging and replacing of equal terms for the equation F=ma ?

why are you upset with mathematics? I don't separate the terms for backradiation except to quantify them. they are both happening simultaneously. it is only people like you who declare that back radiation cannot be quantified (actually you say it doesn't exist) but then refuse to follow the consequences of denying back radiation to its logical conclusions. if the surface is emitting 400w/m2 but only gaining 160w/m2 from the sun....

LOL, the idea is fine if the people doing the manipulations are trustworthy. When they are not we have concepts like this AGW nonsense. Which you yourself have agreed the numbers have been manipulated badly...

BTW. prove your numbers.. Prove the 400w/m2 and the 160w/m2... No interpretations based on theoretical mathematics, show actual proof that those numbers are indeed accurate.. See the problem yet? You are willing to bet the farm on an unproven theory, simply because it's been right on some other things, and despite the fact it cannot explain many real world phenomenon.. You need to get a grip and realize the difference between theory and fact,and realize most of what we actually know for certain is due to real world experience and not numbers..

I'm pretty sure we can measure the avg energy from the sun. I'm pretty sure that we know the avg surface temp so we know how much it radiates. The two are not commensurate so there must be a heat sink component added to the equilibrium which is logically caused by the atmosphere impeding the loss of radiation from the surface to outer space.

How do you explain it to yourself? I'm all ears. Educate me.

 

[IanC]

I've got no blind spot. I am well aware that there is a 5% probability that the correlation happened by random chance. I am well aware that there is a .0000099% probability that it is pixie dust causing the issue.

I also know that the temp goes up and it is highly correlated to all known factors. The likely hood of it being due so some unknown factor is not worth the bet. We don't bet on black swans. That's the nice thing about it. We go with what we've got until something proves otherwise. And so far, nothing proves otherwise.

A 5% probability of not doesn't round up to a 100% probability of never, can't be. A 95% probability rounds up to always, must be.

If I see some guy, walking by my parked car, repeatedly looking inside and around, I don't take that to be coincidence, even though it could be he just happened to be going back and forth to the store. I take it as certain that he's looking to break the window and steal my briefcase. And I can guarantee that everyone who falls into the denier category would do the same. In day to dayl life, they go with far less certianty. Then, when it's about AWG, suddenly they are all "correlation doesn't prove causality".

let's just look at two factors, solar and CO2.

people have always know that the sun is the biggest factor in determining the conditions on earth. once Hershel noticed there was a correlation between sunspots and wheat production we started to look for ways of quantifying it. proxy records suggest that there is a 0.7 correlation over the last few thousand years, which in turn suggests half the variance. lately we have better equipment to measure the solar input but typically just use the general TSI. we do not know the temperature neutral point of TSI. it is likely that the majority of the 20th century was above that point on average, leading to rising temps. in my own opinion an extra watt of TSI is much more capable of actually changing terrestrial conditions because it is highly ordered and high energy, as opposed to the nearly useless backradiation that cannot do much of anything besides counteract outgoing surface radiation.

CO2 has a poor correlation over long periods, eg the last 5000 years has seen a slow drop in temps even as CO2 has slowly increased. of course mankind has disturbed the natural amount of CO2 and that is a wildcard. even looking at the correlation of CO2/temp is difficult because temperature is also affecting CO2 concentration by causing it to be released from the oceans.

when you, itfitzme, take a simple correlation between CO2 and temp, but only over the last hundred years, and declare that it is responsible for 78.xxx percent of the temperature rise, you are fooling yourself and doing a disservice to others by saying your incomplete understanding is true because you can put math equations on the table.

there are many other factors besides solar and CO2. water in its many forms being one of the important ones. when you discount the other factors, and then compound your error by adding the discounted variance from the other factors into the CO2 variance it is properly called fraud.

No I'm not. I am recognizing that the 5000 year curve has discontinuities. Thr discontinuities indicated that something significamt changed. I'm doing a piecewise analysis based on recognizining where and what significantly changed.

I can do the same thing with gasoline prices. Real dollar gasoline prices were basically flat, going up with inflation, until about 1998. That was when China started ramping up in GDP growth on exports, production fueled by using fossil fuels. It is just that simple.

And I didn't stop at CO2 with 74%, I added in solar, el nino, volcano, sulfates, and ozone. As expected, with a muktivariate analysis, the R^2 for CO2 diminishes, as does the residual variance, as the others start picking up more and more of the variability in anomoly.

Calling it fraud deserves a fuck you.

I didn't charge money. It is how it is done, standard practice, and it is right. I haven't done the confidence interval for the slope. You can do that yourself. Like I said, I didn't get paid ti do it.

So fuck you. Or are we to accuse SSaDhD of fraud and lying for completely mangling SLoT?

Yourwork attributed most of the variance to CO2 and the rest of the variance to other GHGs. It should be easy to find, you spamed the board and various threads with it repeatedly.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW GSlack: You also have several issues goin here.. Besides a dismissal of basic Radiative Heating.

GH gases are according to theory, transparent to short-wave EM radiation from the sun. IF so then in effect, although the radiation is coming in and passing through the GH gases, that EM radiation somehow does not effect change in the GH gases...You believe that, but refuse to accept it when it's coming from GH gases to the warmer surface??? WTH??

That's an easy one.. The sun is BROADBAND emitter. It bombards us with everything from UV to deep IR.. What comes thru goin down is largely ALL the visible and short wave EM..

But the source of what's going UP is the black body radiation of the Earth itself.. Because the thermal properties are much less than a sun --- the EMISSION spectrum of the radiation is shifted to be PREDOMINANTLY (almost exclusively) LONG wave IR... It's this LONG wave IR that GHGases love to snack on..

It's that unseen Deep Dark Red Glow of the Warm Bosom of Mother Earth that goes back upwards.

Short unpornagraphic answer.. The incoming broadband radiative energy is translated down in frequency by the heating of the surface.

 

[IanC]

You rejected the explanation I gave above INCLUDING A PAGE from a standard Thermo TEXTBOOK.. Are you saying the TEXTBOOK is wrong? ((Attrib for the page is on the original weblink))..

DUDE your link was to science of doom website. Don't even try and claim it to a textbook it's right there in your link....

Source aside, just because something radiates to to another, warmer object, doesn't mean it can effect change in that object.. What part of this is escaping you?

You assume that if it radiates, it must effect change in a warmer object. When there is no evidence, even in your links, that any such thing must occur...

GH gases are according to theory, transparent to short-wave EM radiation from the sun. IF so then in effect, although the radiation is coming in and passing through the GH gases, that EM radiation somehow does not effect change in the GH gases...You believe that, but refuse to accept it when it's coming from GH gases to the warmer surface??? WTH??

You keep trying to repeat the same thing and sidestep what I say... We do have a thermostat here. A natural one. Day and night, the seasons, solar variance, distance tothe sun, and the fact that GH gases are(thanks to convection) a lousy insulator but a very good method of transferring heat away from a source(convection again).

Which sounds more realistic to you.. Sun radiates to the surface, warms the surface, the surface heat warms the lower atmosphere, convection takes over the warmer atmosphere rises up away from the heat source, and then cools in the process until cold enough and starts to fall back towards the surface, where it collides with the rising warmer air and warms a bit until it gets close enough to the surface again to start the process over again.

OR, your theory that the sun warms the surface which warms the lower atmosphere, which in turn warms the surface further due to back-radiation...

LOL, I'll take my theory all day.. Your's is an attempt to justify a theoretical concept of GH effect, where none is required, Mine is a realistic portrayal of how convection and the atmosphere on this planet works.

It may be statistically correct to assume some form of back-radiation at work, but it is realistically incorrect to assume it can effect noticeable change in it's warmer source.

Call it "net flow" till you are blue in the face, it doesn't change a thing. Be it net flow or absolute flow, the fact remains it's still a positive flow warmer to cooler, and there is no physical evidence to support any incidental back flow effecting noticeable change in the heat source.

I guess you'll just have to complete life with a bogus view of radiative heating. You'll survive.. But there's 2 things I need to know.. So that I can judge your future posts on these topics...

1) There was a TEXTBOOK PAGE with an appropriate attribution in that weblink...
I'll gladly verify the page exists in the original book if you tell me WHY it's wrong.. That was a pretty sketchy deflection of evidence..

DID YOU NOT SEE the Title of the Textbook at the bottom of the Xerox copy???

2) Why did you elect NOT to explain the 2 physical challenges I gave to you and SSDD back about 10 posts ago?? The IR thermometer reading colder objects.. And the 2 metal bars at exactly 100degF? Give me a reading on those using GSLack physics will ya??

So then we're done and how we finish sets the tone for future discussions..

Do you think gslack actually believes that page of text was photoshopped or something?

Its funny how the same information is considere acceptable or not depending on where it is found. Ideas stand on their own merit, not by who speaks them.