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

[PMZ]

To Flac, when you have non-scientists discussing science, of course they are going to get stuff wrong. Because I know I am capable of being wrong, and I really dislike it when I am, I don't attempt to discuss topics that I don't have a pretty good understanding of. And I still get it wrong now and then. There are those here who think you get it wrong now and then. Are you 100% certain that you don't?

And I don't CARE if I or you or others get some fine points of science wrong when it has nothing to do with the conclusions re whether a) global warming is actually occurring to any signficant degree and b) whether mankind utilizes its energy and resources more constructively trying to change the climate or working to help people adapt to a changing climate.

Now it is true that whether CO2 has ability to radiate heat is pertinent to whether it is classified as a GHG. Since I believe it does have that capability, it is a bonafide GHG. But then you read this from the EPA website:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. In 2011, CO2 accounted for about 84% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.Carbon Dioxide Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA

And yet we know that water vapor is the most prevalent GHG in the atmosphere to the tune of something over 95% of all GHG that exists in the atmosphere. Does the EPA really want us to believe that humans are creating more CO2 than water vapor? Of course the AGW argument is that more water vapor increases the warming effect of more CO2 even as they argue that water vapor is short lived in the atmosphere while CO2 is much longer lived, yadda yadda.

The bottom line is that more than 99% of ALL greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are naturally occurring. Is it not then reasonable to question whether anthropological CO2 production is having a catastrophic effect on the climate or even if it is possibly having a positive effect on the climate?

We know we cannot trust the AGW climate models to predict that.

In my view, the EPA is being blatantly dishonest in order to promote justification for government to take control of more and more of our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities.

If the debate does not include THAT, it really doesn't matter which side is spouting the most scientific nonsense.

Doesn't matter to the politicians and general public.. They just react out of SELF-INTEREST.. Science is not suppose to hold a self-interest.

So it does matter what nonsense gets babbled. That's why we took apart Al Gore's screed. It's like disarming a bomb.

If everyone is just bomb-throwing --- the truth is irrelevent. If you want a society that can fabricate and promote "a good story" --- keep thinking that the science doesn't matter.

You get blasted just by saying that the warming has functionally ceased for at least 12 years. Someone is right --- someone is wrong. Does it matter? In the court of public opinion, you bet your ass it matters.. Does it matter to the BIG picture of the forecast?

Probably not. But it DOES say that all the models used to gin up this farce were woefully lacking.. You can WAIT until the models blow up --- or you can point out NOW where they are lacking -- but you have to get deep into theory to do that. Pro-actively, I'm not willing to be buffeted by surprises in order to test my opinions. You pretty much have to make an investment in understanding..

I did what I did here because I don't want to side with OUR bomb-throwers and pretend they are on my side. Especially not when they target the anti-warmers leaders that I value and admire. Just like I'd expect the hysterical warmers to throw Al Gore under the bus when he abuses and subverts science for the cause..

BTW: We KNOW what the effect of the added Anthro. CO2 is.. IT's been calculated and agreed on by most of both sides. But the imagination of the IPCC and the "sustainable" movement has blown that number out of proportion with their catastrophic theories of how fragile the climate and the earth are.. If this was only about the 1.1degC from doubling CO2 in the atmos --- wouldn't even have made it to the evening news..

Unfortunately science departed from politics on this topic quite a while ago. If you want to evaluate the situation using political thinking, ditch the science. If you want to use science, ditch the politics. That simple.

The science does say that the warming due to fossil fuel use and land re-purposing is, as you say, 1.1degC from doubling CO2 in the atmosphere. However, there have been several positive feedbacks uncovered in addition. Like the melting of ice reducing earths albedo. Like the release of additional CO2 from thawing permafrost. The net result being 4 to 12degC from doubling CO2 in the atmosphere. Why would any scientist ignore that assertion?

In addition, the earth has not stopped warming. It just needs to be measured completely instead of just looking at the thermometer out side of your window.

As shown here.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

Reality is tough on your politics. Some would notice that and rethink their politics. You seem to prefer rethinking science. It will be tough to get away with that here.

 

[gslack]

Then give the title and publisher of the textbooks Flac, and you're off the hook. It would be helpful if you highlighted the specific passages that support your argument.

With my last ounce of patience here..

1) You did not read my last post.. I gave you the link to the scienceofdoom page that has BOTH the textbook pages that I repeated on USMB AND THE FREAKING TITLE PAGES of the books..

Go to that link -- copy the titles and authors and you'll be able to visit your local university and find the texts. OR you could TRY to find them on Amazon..

2) The excerpts that I just posted are HIGHLIGHTED AND CIRCLED for the appropriate comments on this debate.. Did you not see the HIGHLIGHTS? Or the red circles?

Let me give you an example from the eckhardt textbook...

When different heated bodies with black surfaces are arranged so that they can see one another, every body radiates heat to the others and absorbs heat radiated from the other bodies. The hotter bodies lose more heat to radiation than they absorb. For the cooler bodies the opposite is true. In this way a heat flow from the hotter to the cooler bodies arises......

This statement (and the following math) verifies the following items at issue here...

A) That ALL bodies in radiative heat transfer both emit and absorb.
B) That the emission flow is function of Temp of each body.
C) To calculate NET emission you must subtract the emissions from EVEN COOLER BODIES.

D) No violation of any other law occurs..
E) ALL of the texts and tutorials I've cited say the exact same..

"LET ME OFF THE HOOK" ????? I was never "on the hook"... Please....
The only detail that is left is the definition of "back-radiation".. As I explained, this term is unique to atmos physics and would not appear in a basic thermo text.. But the passage that I just gave you defines multi-directional flow of radiative heat. (not conduction like in the fridge, but due to Electromagnetic propagation of energy like the sun does)

Since all the math and comments in the traditional heat transfer texts talks about radiation from ALL objects (even cooler ones) being BIDIRECTIONAL or MULTIDIRECTIONAL --- this is basis for the coinage of "backradiation"..

That's the debate -- SCIENCE WON --- and NOBODY has even approached a valid critique of what I just said..

I don't know and don't really care what is in the textbooks on this subject because I am more interested in the validity of the theory of global warming than I am in discussing chemistry or physics related to climate change. I do trust West's evaluation of modern textbooks that are designed to support AGW and are suspect in the science they use to do that. I have opinions of qualified scientists who support his opinion about that. Do the textbook pages you cited fall into that category? I don't know. Do you? Not getting on your case. Just observing that huge globs of cut and paste are usually not useful for those of us interested in the realities and policies related to climate science.

What you're witnessing here is a skirmish among skeptics. Skeptics have principles.. I know that would hard for PMZ or GoldiRocks or Mamooth to admit.. I cannot sit idly by while SSDD and PolarBear and GSlacker try to lynch guys like Dr Spencer with crank scientifically invalid assertions.. We are ALL on the same side. You should be interested in the outcome of this PURELY for the reason that Dr. Spencer (or me) or anyone on the skeptic side gets ATTACKED for defending valid science..

I know it's ugly -- but if we ALLOW crank science to be propagated -- YOU and everyone else that's put time into this will be laughed at and mocked..

It isn't that I am not interested in science, but so far as AGW goes, I want to know that the science models used to support policy are supportable by real facts and evidence and are not intentionally flawed to validate that policy.

And all the stuff that some are arguing re back radiation and other components of atmospheric science--some are obviously only pretending to argue that while they don't have any sort of understanding re what they are arguing--all that is no doubt interesting to some. For me it just muddies the waters and avoids the real issues of AGW and how government is attempting to take away our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities via what may very well be flawed science.

Believe me --- maintaining credibility amongst the skeptic community is VITAL to having our opinions count.. And you should encourage the outing of junkscience from our side as well as theirs.. Best of wishes.. No hard feelings. But I'm pretty much done with this.

OH my god you are full of yourself aren't you... LOL, YOU can't stand bye and let me lynch Spencer??

WHo the hell are you to decides what's valid science and what isn't? In fact who made you lord of AGW skepticism?

You arrogant ass, YOU are not the science police..

The fact is the entire THEORY, is based on another THEORY..

Let's call out your list... You said "This statement (and the following math) verifies the following items at issue here... "

First what math? There was no math following it, all there was you stating this is so..

A. Why are you trying to inaccurately use Kirchoff's law?

Kirchoff's law.."For a body of any arbitrary material, emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature, the perfect black-body emissive power."

That is referring to Idealized perfect blackbodies and NOT representative of anything else. IS a gas a perfect blackbody? NO.. IS there such a thing? NO..ALso your analogy ignores one thing. Convection. The air molecules do not sit still and radiate back, they move, and that movement costs some of that energy, and that alone shows that any incidental back radiation would be minuscule at best. Take out warming other gas molecules near bye, and some energy heading out to the upper atmosphere and space, and the fact it was already used by the surface and you have a hard time showing any noticeable warming of the surface, and that's IF the theory is sound, which I doubt..

B. NO emission is due internal temperature of that body. IF emission flow were the case you wouldn't even have a claim.. Actually WTH is emission flow anyway? My assumption was you meant the direction the emission flows in. IF that were as you claim than it would oppose your claim altogether. The higher temp object wouldn't absorb the energy from lower temp object because your "emission flow " wouldn't allow it... Jesus..

C. SO what? You are again reciting half understood concepts and using twisted logic to sell them.. What does net emission have to do with proving any incidental back-radiation headed to the surface can actually warm that surface? NADA.. Again just because something emits, doesn't mean it has to absorb everything that's emitted. The fact the atmosphere is transparent to incoming solar by your own theories claims, proves this...

D. Re-using the same heat energy is violating the 2nd law.. No matter how you try and justify it..

E. Again, you cited a websites take on a text book, stop exaggerating what you posted.. I have that text book here, it does not state what the website tries to imply. it states facts as far as they know them. The website takes those facts and uses them to give an impression.. That's it...

Basic "thermo" text's do not exist.. Climate science pushes a theory based on an interpretation of Kirchoff and the works of Arrhenius, Tyndall and a few others, using QUantum physics to make it's case. The reason it wasn't pursued until the last 50 years or so is because Quantum Physics wasn't trusted well enough until then.

You assume theory is fact, and take whatever suits your purpose as proof, even IF it's twisted..

You can't claim you understand wave-particle duality, and ignore the wave-like properties to suit your theory. It will catch up with you, and it has now in GH theory..

Now try and reign in your arrogance for a bit.. It's starting to annoy...

 

[IanC]

RE: the bolded above.. This does not agree with the view that CONDUCTIVE heating is a miniscule contribution to earth surface heat loss.. Perhaps you have a reference saying the conduction and convection are the PRIMARY source of surface heat loss??? Doubt it..

I even mentioned that in the my quote above.. Do you know the diff between conduction and radiation??

Bxzzzzt --- Try again..

maybe I should argue with you , flac. at least I know I'll get ideas rather than insults back.

while I am not necessarily agreeing with Trenberth's numbers, I think as a first estimate they are probably in the ballpark.

160w solar input at the surface goes out as 40w through the atmospheric window and 26w other radiation, but the rest leaves the surface (to the cloud top) as thermal and evapotranspiration. that is hardly miniscule. radiation only really takes over past the cloud top, and of course is the only way to actually escape the earth.

the whole water cycle thing is what regulates our climate, and has done for billions of years, even when the Sun's output towards the Earth was considerably lower. fewer clouds means more solar insolation, which leads to warming. warming leads to evaporation and more clouds, which in turn reflects some solar input. a smooth functioning governor that works especially well in the tropics where most of the energy from the Sun is received.

We SHOULD argue about something.. That's a great idea.. MAYBE -- something would get resolved between 2 REASONABLY informed people.. You go first. Pick a fight...

Reducing the surface radiation ESCAPING the atmos to only 40 seems like something of a miracle to me, BUT --- after sifting thru those texts that GSlack and SSDD required, I'm feeling a bit better about that..

Funny comment I ran across in the Atmos Physic text.. The guy lays out the "simple GHouse" model (thin atmos -- homogenous properties) and calculates the S-Boltzmann deal for the earth and the BACKRADIATION component of the GH layer. Does the math and comes up with EXACTLY a surface temp in the right ballpark..

But the comedy comes from his statement in brackets after the numbers.. From memory --

((This result is a bit of unexpected serendipity since our model ignored convection and conduction heating from the surface and adiabatic and thickness effects in the insulating layer. It should not be as accurate as it seems..))

I think that pretty much describes my problem with Trenberth's grand result..

the 40w is through the 10 micron window of direct escape, there is another 26w that supposedly pachinkoes through as well to the top of the clouds. the latent heat released in the clouds adds to the direct escape through the window, and because there is little water vapour left, and the density of the atmosphere is less, other wavelengths of energy can now also escape less impeded.

my contention is that....back radiation to the surface is used up to produce more evaporation (it cannot penetrate water past the surface) and more water vapour simply activates the convection heat pipe and latent heat alternate route for shedding surface heat. CO2 theory considers more water vapour a potent positive feedback but I cannot see how that is possible because the water cycle is controlled by available heat, and available heat is in turn controlled by the water cycle. less clouds, more solar heating. more clouds, less solar heating because it is reflected.

I do not vouch for Trenberth's numbers, there is a considerable chance that they have been shaded to promote his position, but he is a scientist first and although he may suffer from tunnel vision, I dont think his numbers would be substantially off although there may be some effects exaggerated, discounted or just not considered.

boundary skin layer of the oceans would seem to be a profoundly important area of study, with important ramifications, especially for GHG interaction because the temperature differential is so small. while I have seen some papers that mention it, I would like to know more because it is specific areas like that that usually hold the surprise findings that unravel the mystery. on of the problems with GCMs is that they can only deal with large and general spacial areas, so they lose out on localized effects.

 

[IanC]

Flac's posted pages from 'textbooks' actually come from a blog entitled Scienceofdoom. No idea who prepared the 'textbook' pages or their origin. That is an interesting blog though dedicated wholly to the subject of climate science. I was interested that the owner and primary director of the blog seems to have an open mind on the subject and rejects the climate science as religion concept that most of our pro-AGW folks here promote. An open mind is a very good thing.

better yet, he accepts criticism, admits mistakes, and fixes them to the best of his ability.

 

[IanC]

Then give the title and publisher of the textbooks Flac, and you're off the hook. It would be helpful if you highlighted the specific passages that support your argument.

With my last ounce of patience here..

1) You did not read my last post.. I gave you the link to the scienceofdoom page that has BOTH the textbook pages that I repeated on USMB AND THE FREAKING TITLE PAGES of the books..

Go to that link -- copy the titles and authors and you'll be able to visit your local university and find the texts. OR you could TRY to find them on Amazon..

2) The excerpts that I just posted are HIGHLIGHTED AND CIRCLED for the appropriate comments on this debate.. Did you not see the HIGHLIGHTS? Or the red circles?

Let me give you an example from the eckhardt textbook...

When different heated bodies with black surfaces are arranged so that they can see one another, every body radiates heat to the others and absorbs heat radiated from the other bodies. The hotter bodies lose more heat to radiation than they absorb. For the cooler bodies the opposite is true. In this way a heat flow from the hotter to the cooler bodies arises......

This statement (and the following math) verifies the following items at issue here...

A) That ALL bodies in radiative heat transfer both emit and absorb.
B) That the emission flow is function of Temp of each body.
C) To calculate NET emission you must subtract the emissions from EVEN COOLER BODIES.

D) No violation of any other law occurs..
E) ALL of the texts and tutorials I've cited say the exact same..

"LET ME OFF THE HOOK" ????? I was never "on the hook"... Please....
The only detail that is left is the definition of "back-radiation".. As I explained, this term is unique to atmos physics and would not appear in a basic thermo text.. But the passage that I just gave you defines multi-directional flow of radiative heat. (not conduction like in the fridge, but due to Electromagnetic propagation of energy like the sun does)

Since all the math and comments in the traditional heat transfer texts talks about radiation from ALL objects (even cooler ones) being BIDIRECTIONAL or MULTIDIRECTIONAL --- this is basis for the coinage of "backradiation"..

That's the debate -- SCIENCE WON --- and NOBODY has even approached a valid critique of what I just said..

I don't know and don't really care what is in the textbooks on this subject because I am more interested in the validity of the theory of global warming than I am in discussing chemistry or physics related to climate change. I do trust West's evaluation of modern textbooks that are designed to support AGW and are suspect in the science they use to do that. I have opinions of qualified scientists who support his opinion about that. Do the textbook pages you cited fall into that category? I don't know. Do you? Not getting on your case. Just observing that huge globs of cut and paste are usually not useful for those of us interested in the realities and policies related to climate science.

What you're witnessing here is a skirmish among skeptics. Skeptics have principles.. I know that would hard for PMZ or GoldiRocks or Mamooth to admit.. I cannot sit idly by while SSDD and PolarBear and GSlacker try to lynch guys like Dr Spencer with crank scientifically invalid assertions.. We are ALL on the same side. You should be interested in the outcome of this PURELY for the reason that Dr. Spencer (or me) or anyone on the skeptic side gets ATTACKED for defending valid science..

I know it's ugly -- but if we ALLOW crank science to be propagated -- YOU and everyone else that's put time into this will be laughed at and mocked..

It isn't that I am not interested in science, but so far as AGW goes, I want to know that the science models used to support policy are supportable by real facts and evidence and are not intentionally flawed to validate that policy.

And all the stuff that some are arguing re back radiation and other components of atmospheric science--some are obviously only pretending to argue that while they don't have any sort of understanding re what they are arguing--all that is no doubt interesting to some. For me it just muddies the waters and avoids the real issues of AGW and how government is attempting to take away our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities via what may very well be flawed science.

Believe me --- maintaining credibility amongst the skeptic community is VITAL to having our opinions count.. And you should encourage the outing of junkscience from our side as well as theirs.. Best of wishes.. No hard feelings. But I'm pretty much done with this.

all of the major skeptics agree with GHG warming by back radiation, in principle if not magnitude.

I also argue with the 'deniers' on the skeptical side because we need to be solid on our science, and inventing new definitions for the SLoT isnt going to help our cause.

 

[IanC]

Then give the title and publisher of the textbooks Flac, and you're off the hook. It would be helpful if you highlighted the specific passages that support your argument. I don't know and don't really care what is in the textbooks on this subject because I am more interested in the validity of the theory of global warming than I am in discussing chemistry or physics related to climate change. I do trust West's evaluation of modern textbooks that are designed to support AGW and are suspect in the science they use to do that. I have opinions of qualified scientists who support his opinion about that. Do the textbook pages you cited fall into that category? I don't know. Do you?

It isn't that I am not interested in science, but so far as AGW goes, I want to know that the science models used to support policy are supportable by real facts and evidence and are not intentionally flawed to validate that policy.

And all the stuff that some of you actually are arguing re back radiation and other components of atmospheric science--some are obviously only pretending to argue that while they don't have any sort of understanding re what they are arguing--all that is no doubt interesting to you and some others. For me it just muddies the waters and avoids the real issues of AGW and how government is attempting to take away our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities via what may very well be flawed science.

"It isn't that I am not interested in science, but so far as AGW goes, I want to know that the science models used to support policy are supportable by real facts and evidence and are not intentionally flawed to validate that policy."

What policies are you worried about not having adequate scientific support?

In the early 2000's every household in Canada was mailed a brochure detailing the govt position on Kyoto and global warming, and what we should do about it. first and foremost was a picture of Mann's hockey stick and the claim that 1998 was the hottest year, the 90's was the hottest decade, etc. this was presented as scientific FACT.

that brochure is what started McIntyre on his quest to understand MBH98&99. since then we have found out that the science behind paleoreconstructions is weak, distorted and often scientifically incorrect. the simple request for data led to a decade of shame for climate science, the behind-the-scenes corruption used to bolster Mann's fallacy led to climategate, and the stench of rotten statistical methodologies remains to this day as even egregious errors like the upside-down Tilljander cores stand uncorrected, with honest scientists shaking their heads in shame.

clean house and return scientific principles to climate science and you will have less people skeptical. but of course with realistic science rather than exaggerated claims of doom, the question of how, when or even if something needs to be done will be a different scenario all together.

 

[PMZ]

Then give the title and publisher of the textbooks Flac, and you're off the hook. It would be helpful if you highlighted the specific passages that support your argument. I don't know and don't really care what is in the textbooks on this subject because I am more interested in the validity of the theory of global warming than I am in discussing chemistry or physics related to climate change. I do trust West's evaluation of modern textbooks that are designed to support AGW and are suspect in the science they use to do that. I have opinions of qualified scientists who support his opinion about that. Do the textbook pages you cited fall into that category? I don't know. Do you?

It isn't that I am not interested in science, but so far as AGW goes, I want to know that the science models used to support policy are supportable by real facts and evidence and are not intentionally flawed to validate that policy.

And all the stuff that some of you actually are arguing re back radiation and other components of atmospheric science--some are obviously only pretending to argue that while they don't have any sort of understanding re what they are arguing--all that is no doubt interesting to you and some others. For me it just muddies the waters and avoids the real issues of AGW and how government is attempting to take away our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities via what may very well be flawed science.

"It isn't that I am not interested in science, but so far as AGW goes, I want to know that the science models used to support policy are supportable by real facts and evidence and are not intentionally flawed to validate that policy."

What policies are you worried about not having adequate scientific support?

In the early 2000's every household in Canada was mailed a brochure detailing the govt position on Kyoto and global warming, and what we should do about it. first and foremost was a picture of Mann's hockey stick and the claim that 1998 was the hottest year, the 90's was the hottest decade, etc. this was presented as scientific FACT.

that brochure is what started McIntyre on his quest to understand MBH98&99. since then we have found out that the science behind paleoreconstructions is weak, distorted and often scientifically incorrect. the simple request for data led to a decade of shame for climate science, the behind-the-scenes corruption used to bolster Mann's fallacy led to climategate, and the stench of rotten statistical methodologies remains to this day as even egregious errors like the upside-down Tilljander cores stand uncorrected, with honest scientists shaking their heads in shame.

clean house and return scientific principles to climate science and you will have less people skeptical. but of course with realistic science rather than exaggerated claims of doom, the question of how, when or even if something needs to be done will be a different scenario all together.

You have declared yourself to be not objective. That, to my way of thinking, is a major disqualification in credibility.

Science, which is by definition objective, has determined the scope of the problem up to, but not including, the magnitude of the weather changes, and their impact on civilization, that we must mitigate. While I don't think that it will be possible in my lifetime for more certainty, what's been concluded is sufficient to spur action, which is underway.

We will get to sustainable energy. We will adapt civilization to the new, now unavoidable climate, and it will all be very expensive but necessary.

Your non-objectivity is perhaps of academic interest but has no practical application.

 

[PMZ]

Then give the title and publisher of the textbooks Flac, and you're off the hook. It would be helpful if you highlighted the specific passages that support your argument.

With my last ounce of patience here..

1) You did not read my last post.. I gave you the link to the scienceofdoom page that has BOTH the textbook pages that I repeated on USMB AND THE FREAKING TITLE PAGES of the books..

Go to that link -- copy the titles and authors and you'll be able to visit your local university and find the texts. OR you could TRY to find them on Amazon..

2) The excerpts that I just posted are HIGHLIGHTED AND CIRCLED for the appropriate comments on this debate.. Did you not see the HIGHLIGHTS? Or the red circles?

Let me give you an example from the eckhardt textbook...



This statement (and the following math) verifies the following items at issue here...

A) That ALL bodies in radiative heat transfer both emit and absorb.
B) That the emission flow is function of Temp of each body.
C) To calculate NET emission you must subtract the emissions from EVEN COOLER BODIES.

D) No violation of any other law occurs..
E) ALL of the texts and tutorials I've cited say the exact same..

"LET ME OFF THE HOOK" ????? I was never "on the hook"... Please....
The only detail that is left is the definition of "back-radiation".. As I explained, this term is unique to atmos physics and would not appear in a basic thermo text.. But the passage that I just gave you defines multi-directional flow of radiative heat. (not conduction like in the fridge, but due to Electromagnetic propagation of energy like the sun does)

Since all the math and comments in the traditional heat transfer texts talks about radiation from ALL objects (even cooler ones) being BIDIRECTIONAL or MULTIDIRECTIONAL --- this is basis for the coinage of "backradiation"..

That's the debate -- SCIENCE WON --- and NOBODY has even approached a valid critique of what I just said..



What you're witnessing here is a skirmish among skeptics. Skeptics have principles.. I know that would hard for PMZ or GoldiRocks or Mamooth to admit.. I cannot sit idly by while SSDD and PolarBear and GSlacker try to lynch guys like Dr Spencer with crank scientifically invalid assertions.. We are ALL on the same side. You should be interested in the outcome of this PURELY for the reason that Dr. Spencer (or me) or anyone on the skeptic side gets ATTACKED for defending valid science..

I know it's ugly -- but if we ALLOW crank science to be propagated -- YOU and everyone else that's put time into this will be laughed at and mocked..

It isn't that I am not interested in science, but so far as AGW goes, I want to know that the science models used to support policy are supportable by real facts and evidence and are not intentionally flawed to validate that policy.

And all the stuff that some are arguing re back radiation and other components of atmospheric science--some are obviously only pretending to argue that while they don't have any sort of understanding re what they are arguing--all that is no doubt interesting to some. For me it just muddies the waters and avoids the real issues of AGW and how government is attempting to take away our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities via what may very well be flawed science.

Believe me --- maintaining credibility amongst the skeptic community is VITAL to having our opinions count.. And you should encourage the outing of junkscience from our side as well as theirs.. Best of wishes.. No hard feelings. But I'm pretty much done with this.

OH my god you are full of yourself aren't you... LOL, YOU can't stand bye and let me lynch Spencer??

WHo the hell are you to decides what's valid science and what isn't? In fact who made you lord of AGW skepticism?

You arrogant ass, YOU are not the science police..

The fact is the entire THEORY, is based on another THEORY..

Let's call out your list... You said "This statement (and the following math) verifies the following items at issue here... "

First what math? There was no math following it, all there was you stating this is so..

A. Why are you trying to inaccurately use Kirchoff's law?

Kirchoff's law.."For a body of any arbitrary material, emitting and absorbing thermal electromagnetic radiation at every wavelength in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of its emissive power to its dimensionless coefficient of absorption is equal to a universal function only of radiative wavelength and temperature, the perfect black-body emissive power."

That is referring to Idealized perfect blackbodies and NOT representative of anything else. IS a gas a perfect blackbody? NO.. IS there such a thing? NO..ALso your analogy ignores one thing. Convection. The air molecules do not sit still and radiate back, they move, and that movement costs some of that energy, and that alone shows that any incidental back radiation would be minuscule at best. Take out warming other gas molecules near bye, and some energy heading out to the upper atmosphere and space, and the fact it was already used by the surface and you have a hard time showing any noticeable warming of the surface, and that's IF the theory is sound, which I doubt..

B. NO emission is due internal temperature of that body. IF emission flow were the case you wouldn't even have a claim.. Actually WTH is emission flow anyway? My assumption was you meant the direction the emission flows in. IF that were as you claim than it would oppose your claim altogether. The higher temp object wouldn't absorb the energy from lower temp object because your "emission flow " wouldn't allow it... Jesus..

C. SO what? You are again reciting half understood concepts and using twisted logic to sell them.. What does net emission have to do with proving any incidental back-radiation headed to the surface can actually warm that surface? NADA.. Again just because something emits, doesn't mean it has to absorb everything that's emitted. The fact the atmosphere is transparent to incoming solar by your own theories claims, proves this...

D. Re-using the same heat energy is violating the 2nd law.. No matter how you try and justify it..

E. Again, you cited a websites take on a text book, stop exaggerating what you posted.. I have that text book here, it does not state what the website tries to imply. it states facts as far as they know them. The website takes those facts and uses them to give an impression.. That's it...

Basic "thermo" text's do not exist.. Climate science pushes a theory based on an interpretation of Kirchoff and the works of Arrhenius, Tyndall and a few others, using QUantum physics to make it's case. The reason it wasn't pursued until the last 50 years or so is because Quantum Physics wasn't trusted well enough until then.

You assume theory is fact, and take whatever suits your purpose as proof, even IF it's twisted..

You can't claim you understand wave-particle duality, and ignore the wave-like properties to suit your theory. It will catch up with you, and it has now in GH theory..

Now try and reign in your arrogance for a bit.. It's starting to annoy...

People who are educated and informed who share their hard won knowledge are not arrogant in any way. It's only those who loudly insist that the world accept their ignorance who are arrogant.

 

[flacaltenn]

Then give the title and publisher of the textbooks Flac, and you're off the hook. It would be helpful if you highlighted the specific passages that support your argument.

With my last ounce of patience here..

1) You did not read my last post.. I gave you the link to the scienceofdoom page that has BOTH the textbook pages that I repeated on USMB AND THE FREAKING TITLE PAGES of the books..

Go to that link -- copy the titles and authors and you'll be able to visit your local university and find the texts. OR you could TRY to find them on Amazon..

2) The excerpts that I just posted are HIGHLIGHTED AND CIRCLED for the appropriate comments on this debate.. Did you not see the HIGHLIGHTS? Or the red circles?

Let me give you an example from the eckhardt textbook...



This statement (and the following math) verifies the following items at issue here...

A) That ALL bodies in radiative heat transfer both emit and absorb.
B) That the emission flow is function of Temp of each body.
C) To calculate NET emission you must subtract the emissions from EVEN COOLER BODIES.

D) No violation of any other law occurs..
E) ALL of the texts and tutorials I've cited say the exact same..

"LET ME OFF THE HOOK" ????? I was never "on the hook"... Please....
The only detail that is left is the definition of "back-radiation".. As I explained, this term is unique to atmos physics and would not appear in a basic thermo text.. But the passage that I just gave you defines multi-directional flow of radiative heat. (not conduction like in the fridge, but due to Electromagnetic propagation of energy like the sun does)

Since all the math and comments in the traditional heat transfer texts talks about radiation from ALL objects (even cooler ones) being BIDIRECTIONAL or MULTIDIRECTIONAL --- this is basis for the coinage of "backradiation"..

That's the debate -- SCIENCE WON --- and NOBODY has even approached a valid critique of what I just said..



What you're witnessing here is a skirmish among skeptics. Skeptics have principles.. I know that would hard for PMZ or GoldiRocks or Mamooth to admit.. I cannot sit idly by while SSDD and PolarBear and GSlacker try to lynch guys like Dr Spencer with crank scientifically invalid assertions.. We are ALL on the same side. You should be interested in the outcome of this PURELY for the reason that Dr. Spencer (or me) or anyone on the skeptic side gets ATTACKED for defending valid science..

I know it's ugly -- but if we ALLOW crank science to be propagated -- YOU and everyone else that's put time into this will be laughed at and mocked..

It isn't that I am not interested in science, but so far as AGW goes, I want to know that the science models used to support policy are supportable by real facts and evidence and are not intentionally flawed to validate that policy.

And all the stuff that some are arguing re back radiation and other components of atmospheric science--some are obviously only pretending to argue that while they don't have any sort of understanding re what they are arguing--all that is no doubt interesting to some. For me it just muddies the waters and avoids the real issues of AGW and how government is attempting to take away our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities via what may very well be flawed science.

Believe me --- maintaining credibility amongst the skeptic community is VITAL to having our opinions count.. And you should encourage the outing of junkscience from our side as well as theirs.. Best of wishes.. No hard feelings. But I'm pretty much done with this.

OH my god you are full of yourself aren't you... LOL, YOU can't stand bye and let me lynch Spencer??

WHo the hell are you to decides what's valid science and what isn't? In fact who made you lord of AGW skepticism?

You arrogant ass, YOU are not the science police..

The fact is the entire THEORY, is based on another THEORY..

And who are YOU again to call me an arrogant ass? I let the TEXTBOOKS decide and unfortuneately from your comments below -- that isn't possible for you to follow along..

Let's call out your list... You said "This statement (and the following math) verifies the following items at issue here... "

First what math? There was no math following it, all there was you stating this is so..

Go up find where where my quote is.. Refers to a particular textbook page that I presented from Eckhardt.. If you don't see the math --- Call an optometrist IMMEDIATELY.

I CLEARLY STATED where the quote came from.. References this TEXTBOOK page I previously posted...

See the quote I referenced??

When different heated bodies with black surfaces are arranged so that they can see one another, every body radiates heat to the others and absorbs heat radiated from the other bodies. The hotter bodies lose more heat to radiation than they absorb. For the cooler bodies the opposite is true. In this way a heat flow from the hotter to the cooler bodies arises......

In fact --- HAD YOU READ IT or been even mildly following along you would have found that the END OF QUOTE (the part I didn't snip) went like this..

When different heated bodies with black surfaces are arranged so that they can see one another, every body radiates heat to the others and absorbs heat radiated from the other bodies. The hotter bodies lose more heat to radiation than they absorb. For the cooler bodies the opposite is true. In this way a heat flow from the hotter to the cooler bodies arises...... which will be calculated in the following paragraphs...

Meaning --- the math follows..

And indeed --- immediately below that Eckhardt starts to do the SAME CALCULATIONS that are layed out in the other FIVE references that got snipped..

So having demonstrated your lack of interest or ability in USING anything I've presented here.. I have NO interest at this point in addressing the REST of your mangled post.. Take that any way you want.. You wait 3 pages to pick a fight about a non-existant issue..

And you mock all the efforts to show that back-radiation in the GreenHouse theory is supported by basic laws. And you attack me. You are as said above doomed to be a "useless" skeptic.

 

[Foxfyre]

All I have said on that subject Flac, is that you would have made a much more useful post had you highlighted the pertinant passage in the textbook you were referencing along with the title and publisher of the book. I am frankly too lazy to search through a large block of cut and pasted material trying to figure out what another member is talking about. I don't expect others to do that from my post.

But again, going back to my refrigerator illustration, we are talking about a microscopic speck in the grand scheme of things, yet there are so many variables involved in cooling that roast, that it would take pages of math to factor all them and precisely judge the exact time the roast would be cooled to the temperature that the refrigerator is set.

Using your black objects analogy, the quantity of heat transfer is calculable accurately ONLY if there are no variables.

And in the grand scale of Planet Earth and her massive astmosphere, think how many more variables exist than what the puny models can include?

That simply has to be a part of the debate on climate science or there really is no debate at all, but simply pronouncements of people who have their minds made up based on incomplete information.

 

[PMZ]

It's actually about the same complexity doing the roast calculation and the AGW calculation. The roast involves mostly conduction, dead easy, with some convection. Negligible radiation.

The AGW for systems earth, only radiation. Radiation in from the sun, constant enough. Radiation out, reduced according to GHG concentrations in the atmosphere. The reflected heat energy out must be compensated for by the fourth power of the earth's absolute temperature rising. Slide rule stuff.

The only thing that is nearly impossibly complicated is how long until equilibrium is achieved.

 

[Foxfyre]

I already provided an argument that blows your silly theory out of the water PMZ. But of course you didn't read it. Or if you did, you didn't understand it. So you keep making yourself look foolish by repeating the same nonsense.

 

[PMZ]

The good thing about being both honest and informed is that they allow confidence. There is no other option for systems earth when outgoing radiation is reduced by increased GHG concentrations. Energy balance requires warming.

You are trying to sell cooking your roast in the refrigerator which just doesn't happen no matter how much you wish it would.

The earth was in equilibrium, now it's not. What changed is GHG concentrations. The consequence is global warming. You are free to wish differently if that floats your boat but you will still be wrong until you accept reality. If you have never learned enough to realize and comprehend that reality you have a learning opportunity staring you in the face. Just do it.

 

[flacaltenn]

All I have said on that subject Flac, is that you would have made a much more useful post had you highlighted the pertinant passage in the textbook you were referencing along with the title and publisher of the book. I am frankly too lazy to search through a large block of cut and pasted material trying to figure out what another member is talking about. I don't expect others to do that from my post.

But again, going back to my refrigerator illustration, we are talking about a microscopic speck in the grand scheme of things, yet there are so many variables involved in cooling that roast, that it would take pages of math to factor all them and precisely judge the exact time the roast would be cooled to the temperature that the refrigerator is set.

Using your black objects analogy, the quantity of heat transfer is calculable accurately ONLY if there are no variables.

And in the grand scale of Planet Earth and her massive astmosphere, think how many more variables exist than what the puny models can include?

That simply has to be a part of the debate on climate science or there really is no debate at all, but simply pronouncements of people who have their minds made up based on incomplete information.

Not only is the pertinent stuff HIGHLIGHTED in posts directly above.. I provided a link to the page where I got these textbook quotes. And on that page -- the TITLE PAGE IS ALSO THERE.. Do you think I should need to do more?? If so -- WHY? Nobody else here lifts a pinky.

DO YOU NOT SEE THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHT in the image in my last post? Do you not see where I LABORIOUSLY re-typed it out for all to read (because you can't and paste easily from a xerox)?

Don't know why that is the larger issue here.. The larger issue is that NO ONE ELSE seems to be interested in discussing science..


The "black objects" clause is only invoked for tutorial purposes in a textbook... When you're teaching a subject -- you make assumptions that chucks variables to reveal the basic stuff.. Then you add back one at a time..

The only reason BLACK bodies come into this --- is that the first calculations you want to do for radiative heating have to IGNORE REFLECTION... (because a black body is a pure absorber)..

This effects only the MAGNITUDE of the calculation result. Not the general form of the equation. The net flows proceed to be calculated just as they would with a grey body only taking into account the percent reflection from the surface..

 

[Foxfyre]

And now you are making yourself look foolish by posting lies about even my illustration, PMZ. And you have provided no credible basis for the Earth being out of equilibrium. We have studied the subject for far too short a period and utilizing far too inadequate computer models to arrive at such a conclusion with any degree of confidence.

 

[flacaltenn]

Let me guess. You didn't take highschool chemistry did you. And you haven't had any physics classes either.

If you had you would know: all matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation.

I agree.

My point is that if two bodies are contained in an atmosphere, and are at nearly the same absolute temperature, the transfer of heat between them and the atmosphere, by convection and conduction, will be much higher than by radiation.


On the other hand the transfer of heat between the filament of the light bulb in the refrigerator, when the bulb is on, would be a higher percent by radiation.

And the filament would be warmed by even the the cold food, and the food warmed more by the very hot filament.

That's why LED refrigerator lighting is such a good idea.

Ah now you are back pedaling which generally happens when somebody is talking about stuff they have no clue what they are talking about. You didn't make the point re objects near the same 'absolute temperature'. I was specific about what the temperatures were in my illustration. You got caught making a statement that was flat out false and now are trying to unembarrass yourself. Won't work.

I am only quoting FoxFyre because PMZ is the only USMB poster I have on ignore..

Just to address the bolded part above of PMZ's "guess".. The reason that isnt true is that the atmos is pretty darn thick.. Several MILES thick and the portion that is in contact with the earths surface and AVAILABLE for conduction is rather small..

On the OTHER HAND,, radiative heating (yes back-radiation) from the atmos is NOT LIMITED BY DISTANCE. And nearly every energetic photon from that thick layer directed at the earths surface WILL hit and be absorbed. THAT'S why radiative heating dominates in Atmos Physics..

Why is the heatsink on your Pentium all wrinkly?? To increase the surface area available for conduction.. Short of making the earth's surface more "wrinkly" --- radiation of IR energy will dominate..

 

[gslack]

With my last ounce of patience here..

1) You did not read my last post.. I gave you the link to the scienceofdoom page that has BOTH the textbook pages that I repeated on USMB AND THE FREAKING TITLE PAGES of the books..

Go to that link -- copy the titles and authors and you'll be able to visit your local university and find the texts. OR you could TRY to find them on Amazon..

2) The excerpts that I just posted are HIGHLIGHTED AND CIRCLED for the appropriate comments on this debate.. Did you not see the HIGHLIGHTS? Or the red circles?

Let me give you an example from the eckhardt textbook...



This statement (and the following math) verifies the following items at issue here...

A) That ALL bodies in radiative heat transfer both emit and absorb.
B) That the emission flow is function of Temp of each body.
C) To calculate NET emission you must subtract the emissions from EVEN COOLER BODIES.

D) No violation of any other law occurs..
E) ALL of the texts and tutorials I've cited say the exact same..

"LET ME OFF THE HOOK" ????? I was never "on the hook"... Please....
The only detail that is left is the definition of "back-radiation".. As I explained, this term is unique to atmos physics and would not appear in a basic thermo text.. But the passage that I just gave you defines multi-directional flow of radiative heat. (not conduction like in the fridge, but due to Electromagnetic propagation of energy like the sun does)

Since all the math and comments in the traditional heat transfer texts talks about radiation from ALL objects (even cooler ones) being BIDIRECTIONAL or MULTIDIRECTIONAL --- this is basis for the coinage of "backradiation"..

That's the debate -- SCIENCE WON --- and NOBODY has even approached a valid critique of what I just said..



What you're witnessing here is a skirmish among skeptics. Skeptics have principles.. I know that would hard for PMZ or GoldiRocks or Mamooth to admit.. I cannot sit idly by while SSDD and PolarBear and GSlacker try to lynch guys like Dr Spencer with crank scientifically invalid assertions.. We are ALL on the same side. You should be interested in the outcome of this PURELY for the reason that Dr. Spencer (or me) or anyone on the skeptic side gets ATTACKED for defending valid science..

I know it's ugly -- but if we ALLOW crank science to be propagated -- YOU and everyone else that's put time into this will be laughed at and mocked..



Believe me --- maintaining credibility amongst the skeptic community is VITAL to having our opinions count.. And you should encourage the outing of junkscience from our side as well as theirs.. Best of wishes.. No hard feelings. But I'm pretty much done with this.

OH my god you are full of yourself aren't you... LOL, YOU can't stand bye and let me lynch Spencer??

WHo the hell are you to decides what's valid science and what isn't? In fact who made you lord of AGW skepticism?

You arrogant ass, YOU are not the science police..

The fact is the entire THEORY, is based on another THEORY..

And who are YOU again to call me an arrogant ass? I let the TEXTBOOKS decide and unfortuneately from your comments below -- that isn't possible for you to follow along..



Go up find where where my quote is.. Refers to a particular textbook page that I presented from Eckhardt.. If you don't see the math --- Call an optometrist IMMEDIATELY.

I CLEARLY STATED where the quote came from.. References this TEXTBOOK page I previously posted...

See the quote I referenced??

When different heated bodies with black surfaces are arranged so that they can see one another, every body radiates heat to the others and absorbs heat radiated from the other bodies. The hotter bodies lose more heat to radiation than they absorb. For the cooler bodies the opposite is true. In this way a heat flow from the hotter to the cooler bodies arises......

In fact --- HAD YOU READ IT or been even mildly following along you would have found that the END OF QUOTE (the part I didn't snip) went like this..

When different heated bodies with black surfaces are arranged so that they can see one another, every body radiates heat to the others and absorbs heat radiated from the other bodies. The hotter bodies lose more heat to radiation than they absorb. For the cooler bodies the opposite is true. In this way a heat flow from the hotter to the cooler bodies arises...... which will be calculated in the following paragraphs...

Meaning --- the math follows..

And indeed --- immediately below that Eckhardt starts to do the SAME CALCULATIONS that are layed out in the other FIVE references that got snipped..

So having demonstrated your lack of interest or ability in USING anything I've presented here.. I have NO interest at this point in addressing the REST of your mangled post.. Take that any way you want.. You wait 3 pages to pick a fight about a non-existant issue..

And you mock all the efforts to show that back-radiation in the GreenHouse theory is supported by basic laws. And you attack me. You are as said above doomed to be a "useless" skeptic.

So then when you say "following math" you meant the math that is in the pictures you posted from science of doom? Okay got it.. Might want to clarify what is going to be your work, and what's going to be someone elses...

So then we already know that.. And that is not proof of backradiation, it's proof of radiation. BAckradiation would be if the bodies continued to get hotter due to radiation returned to them from the other body. OR more specifically, a hotter body would get hotter due to a colder body next to it..

But the pages you posted don't support that claim...IN fact they support mine...

Now please get a grip.. Radiation of all objects does not prove back-radiation, and it's a silly claim you are making to that effect.. By your standard all radiation is backradiation and that's completely false.. BAck-radiation as it states would be radiation coming back to it's source. Not radiation from another source, but it's source. Another example would be a source radiating to an object and that object radiating enough heat back to it's source of heat, to warm it further...

See the difference yet? WHat you are doing is claiming some very vague definition of back-radiation to argue it's merits, when in reality it is a very specific thing, and not a vague or general interpretation.

I hope it's not intentional, but to be honest It is starting to look that way because I have explained the difference several times and you keep posting the same nonsense anyway..

If you aren't sure the difference and don't trust me, ask Ian or somebody you trust. IF they tell you that your definition of back-radiation is sound, get another opinion because the rest of the world has a different view on it.

 

[PMZ]

If you question the effect of GHG, you are way behind the times. We've known for a long time that life owes it's existence to them. Without them we'd be 30+ degrees colder and wouldn't have anything to worry about.

 

[flacaltenn]

OH my god you are full of yourself aren't you... LOL, YOU can't stand bye and let me lynch Spencer??

WHo the hell are you to decides what's valid science and what isn't? In fact who made you lord of AGW skepticism?

You arrogant ass, YOU are not the science police..

The fact is the entire THEORY, is based on another THEORY..

And who are YOU again to call me an arrogant ass? I let the TEXTBOOKS decide and unfortuneately from your comments below -- that isn't possible for you to follow along..



Go up find where where my quote is.. Refers to a particular textbook page that I presented from Eckhardt.. If you don't see the math --- Call an optometrist IMMEDIATELY.

I CLEARLY STATED where the quote came from.. References this TEXTBOOK page I previously posted...

See the quote I referenced??


In fact --- HAD YOU READ IT or been even mildly following along you would have found that the END OF QUOTE (the part I didn't snip) went like this..

When different heated bodies with black surfaces are arranged so that they can see one another, every body radiates heat to the others and absorbs heat radiated from the other bodies. The hotter bodies lose more heat to radiation than they absorb. For the cooler bodies the opposite is true. In this way a heat flow from the hotter to the cooler bodies arises...... which will be calculated in the following paragraphs...

Meaning --- the math follows..

And indeed --- immediately below that Eckhardt starts to do the SAME CALCULATIONS that are layed out in the other FIVE references that got snipped..

So having demonstrated your lack of interest or ability in USING anything I've presented here.. I have NO interest at this point in addressing the REST of your mangled post.. Take that any way you want.. You wait 3 pages to pick a fight about a non-existant issue..

And you mock all the efforts to show that back-radiation in the GreenHouse theory is supported by basic laws. And you attack me. You are as said above doomed to be a "useless" skeptic.

So then when you say "following math" you meant the math that is in the pictures you posted from science of doom? Okay got it.. Might want to clarify what is going to be your work, and what's going to be someone elses...

So then we already know that.. And that is not proof of backradiation, it's proof of radiation. BAckradiation would be if the bodies continued to hotter due to radiation returned to them from the other body. OR more specifically, a hotter body would get hotter due to a colder body next to it..

But the pages you posted don't support that claim...IN fact they support mine...

Now please get a grip.. Radiation of all objects does not prove back-radiation, and it's a silly claim you are making to that effect.. By your standard all radiation is backradiation and that's completely false.. BAck-radiation as it states would be radiation coming back to it's source. Not radiation from another source, but it's source. Another example would be a source radiating to an object and that object radiating enough heat back to it's source of heat, to warm it further...

See the difference yet? WHat you are doing is claiming some very vague definition of back-radiation to argue it's merits, when in reality it is a very specific thing, and not a vague or general interpretation.

I hope it's not intentional, but to be honest It is starting to look that way because I have explained the difference several times and you keep posting the same nonsense anyway..

If you aren't sure the difference and don't trust me, ask Ian or somebody you trust. IF they tell you that your definition of back-radiation is sound, get another opinion because the rest of the world has a different view on it.

babble... warmer getting hotter due to cooler.. That's all babble..

warmer DOESN't get hotter EVER unless it's being pumped with energy like the earth. It's rate of emission decreases with other radiating surfaces present..

Considering only the blanket and NOT the sun --- it's the COOLING RATE of the earth that is changed by the presence of the "cooler" atmos.. It's a matter of degree.. The atmos is a much "warmer" choice than being bare-ass naked to space isn't it?

Got More Babble?

I ain't making it up... All right there in the textbooks.. Perhaps you want to show me a textbook on RADIATIVE transfer that says

"cooler emissive bodies cannot radiate towards warmer bodies"

OR

"if they do --- that energy doesn't count"...

I'll take anything with a textbook cover... that SPECIFICALLY discusses radiative emissions ---- not conduction or convection.. Happy hunting pal..

If you think the references I brought to the table prove YOUR point (whatever the fuck that is).. Just recircle the references.. (won't happen guarandamteed)...

 

[PMZ]

Those cooler bodies have to be constantly on the alert for hotter bodies to shut off radiating towards. And what if there was a 1000 degree body in between a 900 degree body and a 1100 degree body? It would go nuts.