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

[PMZ]

Can I ask you a simple question to gauge your understanding of the basics?

Where does blackbody radiation come from? A gas is the simplest example.

Bonus points for describing why CO2 backradiation is different.

Blackbody radiation comes from things that don't exist. It's a theoretical only concept from which inferences about radiation can be made for things that do exist.

Backradiation is very simple. It's the back towards earth vector of the omnidirectional radiation given off by GHG molecules returning to a stable state after absorbing a photon of long wave radiation due to, and coming from, the absolute temperature of mother earth.

GHGs have has always been part of earth's ecosystem. They are what keeps earth's average temperature above freezing. They are the reason why conditions on earth favored the development of carbon/water based life.

Thank you for answering.

Did the question illustrate to you that there are significant gaps in your understanding of thermodynamics? Did you notice that one dealt with kinetic energy and the concept of temperature while the other was more focused on specific quantum absorption and emission? Were you satisfied with your understanding of the origin of BB radiation?

The simplist model is a body in space in which something restricts radiation out.

Next are climate models. Long term average weather.

Most complex are long term dynamic weather models.

 

[PMZ]

He theorized in 1896 what you still don't know to this day. If he's stupid what are you?

Actually, he hypothesized and his claims remain hypothesis. Perhaps you should learn the difference between hypothesis and theory and what it takes to become theory. AGW as well as the greenhouse effect itself remains hypothesis. Calling them theory does not make them so and when applied to the real world, his hypothesis fails.

Actually you have so little credibility here and on this topic that what you think is irrelevant. That's the position that you chose.

 

[PMZ]

It is obvious that you like to play the expert. You like to bring things here that you clearly don't understand and then you say things like the above "only radiant energy in and radiant energy out" that show how profoundly clueless you are.

Even most children know that statement to be the result of deep and dark ignorance.

Only radiant energy in and radiant energy out? Are you fucking kidding. We are just finishing up with the perseids. How much matter do you think entered the atmosphere just from that event? Take a guess....how much space dust do you think enters the atmosphere every day? Now take another guess...how much hydrogen do you think escapes the atmosphere every day?

Only radiant energy in and radiant energy out rivals mamooth's claim that statistics was the basic mechanism at work in the most fundamental law of nature as the most stupid, and abjectly ignorant statement ever made on this, or any other board....EVER.

Exactly how much do you believe the Perseids add to the Earth's energy budget (keeping in mind that the comet that creates those dust showers is itself only a few miles in diameter)?

Learn to comprehend what you read. The idiot said that nothing comes into the system but radiant energy and nothing goes out but radiant energy when asked if he believed the earth was a closed system. Look up closed system and try to comprehend how stupid his response was. Open and closed doesn't just refer to energy exchange.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system

 

[SSDD]

There is always more to be learned. In the case of AGW it's in the dynamics of all earth systems in responding to the need to warm in order to rebalance incoming and outgoing radiation. I think that we're years away from long term weather forecasts.

Need to warm? Are you kidding? You just get further and further out there. In the first place, "need" is irrelavent. In the second place, the universe is working towards cold. Energy moves from less entropy (warm) to more entropy (cold). Nothing warms because it needs to warm. If left alone, it all works towards cold.

 

[SSDD]

He theorized in 1896 what you still don't know to this day. If he's stupid what are you?

Actually, he hypothesized and his claims remain hypothesis. Perhaps you should learn the difference between hypothesis and theory and what it takes to become theory. AGW as well as the greenhouse effect itself remains hypothesis. Calling them theory does not make them so and when applied to the real world, his hypothesis fails.

Actually you have so little credibility here and on this topic that what you think is irrelevant. That's the position that you chose.

No actual answer or indication that you know the difference between hypothesis and theory. Pretend condesension. How unsurprising is that?

 

[SSDD]

Exactly how much do you believe the Perseids add to the Earth's energy budget (keeping in mind that the comet that creates those dust showers is itself only a few miles in diameter)?

Learn to comprehend what you read. The idiot said that nothing comes into the system but radiant energy and nothing goes out but radiant energy when asked if he believed the earth was a closed system. Look up closed system and try to comprehend how stupid his response was. Open and closed doesn't just refer to energy exchange.

Closed system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What's your point? The earth exchanges energy and matter with the rest of the universe. It is not a closed system.

 

[PMZ]

There is always more to be learned. In the case of AGW it's in the dynamics of all earth systems in responding to the need to warm in order to rebalance incoming and outgoing radiation. I think that we're years away from long term weather forecasts.

Need to warm? Are you kidding? You just get further and further out there. In the first place, "need" is irrelavent. In the second place, the universe is working towards cold. Energy moves from less entropy (warm) to more entropy (cold). Nothing warms because it needs to warm. If left alone, it all works towards cold.

We can change the debate to semantics if you want to.

AGW is caused by a deficit in outgoing, in the balance of incoming and outgoing radiant energy relative to earth. More energy in than out, the surplus adds to earth's energy until it's temperature rises enough to overpower whatever is restricting energy from going out, and balance is restored.

So simple. So obvious.

 

[PMZ]

Learn to comprehend what you read. The idiot said that nothing comes into the system but radiant energy and nothing goes out but radiant energy when asked if he believed the earth was a closed system. Look up closed system and try to comprehend how stupid his response was. Open and closed doesn't just refer to energy exchange.

Closed system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What's your point? The earth exchanges energy and matter with the rest of the universe. It is not a closed system.

I never said it was numb nuts.

 

[PMZ]

Actually, he hypothesized and his claims remain hypothesis. Perhaps you should learn the difference between hypothesis and theory and what it takes to become theory. AGW as well as the greenhouse effect itself remains hypothesis. Calling them theory does not make them so and when applied to the real world, his hypothesis fails.

Actually you have so little credibility here and on this topic that what you think is irrelevant. That's the position that you chose.

No actual answer or indication that you know the difference between hypothesis and theory. Pretend condesension. How unsurprising is that?

I'm pretty sure that you are coming unglued. One of the consequences of feeling the need to defend the indefensible.

 

[IanC]

It is obvious that you like to play the expert. You like to bring things here that you clearly don't understand and then you say things like the above "only radiant energy in and radiant energy out" that show how profoundly clueless you are.

Even most children know that statement to be the result of deep and dark ignorance.

Only radiant energy in and radiant energy out? Are you fucking kidding. We are just finishing up with the perseids. How much matter do you think entered the atmosphere just from that event? Take a guess....how much space dust do you think enters the atmosphere every day? Now take another guess...how much hydrogen do you think escapes the atmosphere every day?

Only radiant energy in and radiant energy out rivals mamooth's claim that statistics was the basic mechanism at work in the most fundamental law of nature as the most stupid, and abjectly ignorant statement ever made on this, or any other board....EVER.

Exactly how much do you believe the Perseids add to the Earth's energy budget (keeping in mind that the comet that creates those dust showers is itself only a few miles in diameter)?

Learn to comprehend what you read. The idiot said that nothing comes into the system but radiant energy and nothing goes out but radiant energy when asked if he believed the earth was a closed system. Look up closed system and try to comprehend how stupid his response was. Open and closed doesn't just refer to energy exchange.

Hahahaha. Some of you guys are idiots for arguing over insignificant details while ignoring main idea.

Oh....and mamooth is correct. The second law is just a statistical prediction.

 

[PMZ]

Exactly how much do you believe the Perseids add to the Earth's energy budget (keeping in mind that the comet that creates those dust showers is itself only a few miles in diameter)?

Learn to comprehend what you read. The idiot said that nothing comes into the system but radiant energy and nothing goes out but radiant energy when asked if he believed the earth was a closed system. Look up closed system and try to comprehend how stupid his response was. Open and closed doesn't just refer to energy exchange.

Hahahaha. Some of you guys are idiots for arguing over insignificant details while ignoring main idea.

Oh....and mamooth is correct. The second law is just a statistical prediction.

"Some of you guys are idiots for arguing over insignificant details while ignoring main idea."

This is how the defense based on creating reasonable doubt works. The big picture offers no support, no science at all for any effects from the cause of GHG's in the atmosphere other than global warming.

But, every detail can be attacked in obscure and political ways to create, at least in some minds, reasonable doubt.

And, in a jury as well as the court of public opinion, it only needs to be reasonable doubt in a few minds.

By now most people accept that the reasonable doubt strategy failed those who tried to employ it in the field of AGW. it will be back though for other political issues.

 

[gslack]

Exactly how much do you believe the Perseids add to the Earth's energy budget (keeping in mind that the comet that creates those dust showers is itself only a few miles in diameter)?

Learn to comprehend what you read. The idiot said that nothing comes into the system but radiant energy and nothing goes out but radiant energy when asked if he believed the earth was a closed system. Look up closed system and try to comprehend how stupid his response was. Open and closed doesn't just refer to energy exchange.

Hahahaha. Some of you guys are idiots for arguing over insignificant details while ignoring main idea.

Oh....and mamooth is correct. The second law is just a statistical prediction.

Now Ian, quit showing your hole card.. You're supposed to be a luke-warmwer remember...

And nomamooth is not correct. And neither are you...

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.
The second law is an empirically validated postulate of thermodynamics, but it can be understood and explained using the underlying quantum statistical mechanics, together with the assumption of low-entropy initial conditions in the distant past (possibly at the beginning of the universe). In the language of statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of microscopic configurations corresponding to a macroscopic state. Because equilibrium corresponds to a vastly greater number of microscopic configurations than any non-equilibrium state, it has the maximum entropy, and the second law follows because random chance alone practically guarantees that the system will evolve toward equilibrium.
It is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential decrease in an isolated non-gravitational physical system, leading eventually to a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

It's a "empirically validated postulate" know what that means? It means it is assumed fact or true due to empirical evidence or observation. The fact it can be explained using QM or statistical means, does not mean it is strictly or even loosely a statistical prediction..

You're calling QM fact again Ian... It's not a fact, it's an attempt to explain the so far unexplainable.

Can you prove that shroedinger's cat was both dead and alive until he opened the box? Of course not..Get a grip, you are convinced a statistical possibility is fact..

 

[PMZ]

Learn to comprehend what you read. The idiot said that nothing comes into the system but radiant energy and nothing goes out but radiant energy when asked if he believed the earth was a closed system. Look up closed system and try to comprehend how stupid his response was. Open and closed doesn't just refer to energy exchange.

Closed system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What's your point? The earth exchanges energy and matter with the rest of the universe. It is not a closed system.

It's clear that every time an asteroid of any size hits earth's TOA, it's kinetic energy and matter becomes part of earth's.

It's very insignificant compared to what earth already has, but it's not zero.

 

[gslack]

Learn to comprehend what you read. The idiot said that nothing comes into the system but radiant energy and nothing goes out but radiant energy when asked if he believed the earth was a closed system. Look up closed system and try to comprehend how stupid his response was. Open and closed doesn't just refer to energy exchange.

Hahahaha. Some of you guys are idiots for arguing over insignificant details while ignoring main idea.

Oh....and mamooth is correct. The second law is just a statistical prediction.

"Some of you guys are idiots for arguing over insignificant details while ignoring main idea."

This is how the defense based on creating reasonable doubt works. The big picture offers no support, no science at all for any effects from the cause of GHG's in the atmosphere other than global warming.

But, every detail can be attacked in obscure and political ways to create, at least in some minds, reasonable doubt.

And, in a jury as well as the court of public opinion, it only needs to be reasonable doubt in a few minds.

By now most people accept that the reasonable doubt strategy failed those who tried to employ it in the field of AGW. it will be back though for other political issues.

And thank you for showing how pathetic the warmer side is....

Ian's been coddling you and the clones for long enough to call him a warmer.. Why hasn't he jumped on you for your continued stupidity and endless retarded statements and false scientific claims? Why hasn't he gotten on any of you clones for it?

Anybody else and he would have gone on and on insulting, and posting reasons why they are wrong. yet you guys can say anything and all he does is either clam up, or nicely try and lead you into a correction...

He's a a warmer, just playing a part...

 

[orogenicman]

Learn to comprehend what you read. The idiot said that nothing comes into the system but radiant energy and nothing goes out but radiant energy when asked if he believed the earth was a closed system. Look up closed system and try to comprehend how stupid his response was. Open and closed doesn't just refer to energy exchange.

We are talking thermodynamics here. And from a thermodynamics perspective, the Perseid meteor shower adds nothing to the Earth's energy/heat budget, and so for all practical purposes is irrelevant.

Irrelevant except for the fact that his statement proves that he doesn't have a clue

I don't disagree with you that the Planet is an open system. I disagree that the Perseid meteor shower is in any way relevant to the Earth's energy budget.

 

[orogenicman]

Well, it is a bit scary that you guys would try to defend such a stupid statement. Guess it puts you all in the same boat. By the way Matthew, how's that great ice melt of 2013 working out for you?

Those charts keep showing shorter and shorter periods of time. Why not show an honest chart?

Well, if you want longer periods of time, how about this one:

The trend is rather obvious.

 

[IanC]

Learn to comprehend what you read. The idiot said that nothing comes into the system but radiant energy and nothing goes out but radiant energy when asked if he believed the earth was a closed system. Look up closed system and try to comprehend how stupid his response was. Open and closed doesn't just refer to energy exchange.

Hahahaha. Some of you guys are idiots for arguing over insignificant details while ignoring main idea.

Oh....and mamooth is correct. The second law is just a statistical prediction.

Now Ian, quit showing your hole card.. You're supposed to be a luke-warmwer remember...

And nomamooth is not correct. And neither are you...

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.
The second law is an empirically validated postulate of thermodynamics, but it can be understood and explained using the underlying quantum statistical mechanics, together with the assumption of low-entropy initial conditions in the distant past (possibly at the beginning of the universe). In the language of statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of microscopic configurations corresponding to a macroscopic state. Because equilibrium corresponds to a vastly greater number of microscopic configurations than any non-equilibrium state, it has the maximum entropy, and the second law follows because random chance alone practically guarantees that the system will evolve toward equilibrium.
It is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential decrease in an isolated non-gravitational physical system, leading eventually to a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

It's a "empirically validated postulate" know what that means? It means it is assumed fact or true due to empirical evidence or observation. The fact it can be explained using QM or statistical means, does not mean it is strictly or even loosely a statistical prediction..

You're calling QM fact again Ian... It's not a fact, it's an attempt to explain the so far unexplainable.

Can you prove that shroedinger's cat was both dead and alive until he opened the box? Of course not..Get a grip, you are convinced a statistical possibility is fact..

Gslack- your knowledge and understanding of sciencre is nothing but a caricature. As is mine but at least I have some of the basics.

If you want to wait around for a 'better' explanation than quantum statistics, that is your right. I hope you won't be disappointed when it turns out to be just a more complex solution based on the same principles.

 

[orogenicman]

IanC. Wasn't it you who encouraged us not to respond to that troll?

 

[SSDD]

There is always more to be learned. In the case of AGW it's in the dynamics of all earth systems in responding to the need to warm in order to rebalance incoming and outgoing radiation. I think that we're years away from long term weather forecasts.

Need to warm? Are you kidding? You just get further and further out there. In the first place, "need" is irrelavent. In the second place, the universe is working towards cold. Energy moves from less entropy (warm) to more entropy (cold). Nothing warms because it needs to warm. If left alone, it all works towards cold.

We can change the debate to semantics if you want to.

AGW is caused by a deficit in outgoing, in the balance of incoming and outgoing radiant energy relative to earth. More energy in than out, the surplus adds to earth's energy until it's temperature rises enough to overpower whatever is restricting energy from going out, and balance is restored.

So simple. So obvious.

And yet there's been no warming for 15+ years now even though CO2 has increased.

 

[IanC]

We are talking thermodynamics here. And from a thermodynamics perspective, the Perseid meteor shower adds nothing to the Earth's energy/heat budget, and so for all practical purposes is irrelevant.

Irrelevant except for the fact that his statement proves that he doesn't have a clue

I don't disagree with you that the Planet is an open system. I disagree that the Perseid meteor shower is in any way relevant to the Earth's energy budget.

And yet you argued that the earth is not in near equilibrium. Relevant or irrelevant seems to be a cloudy issue with you.