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

[Saigon]

Conservatives care about climate, about the environment, about quality of life, about the prosperity and/or lack thereof of humans everywhere every bit as much as any othe people do. In fact I am pretty darn conservative and you won't find many people as interested or as passionate about environment, climate science, and other Earth sciences as I am.

They do -which is why see conservtive parties around the world backing climate change science.

In the US they apparently do not, because they can not see the science for politics.

But why in the world would oil companies fund bogus research to discredit global warming when they are making out like bandits with green energy projects?

Seriously?

Firstly, for the same reason tobacco companies denied the link to cancer, and secondly because research into replacing oil is incredibly and largely coming out of their pockets. If you think they are making millions out of - produce the figures.

You won't, because you know you are wrong.


btw - all accusations concerning socks will now be reported to the mods.

 

[itfitzme]

Yes, I love these people with their "it's just a trace" idiocy. One gram is a very small amount, so just go ahead and ingest one gram of potassium cynide. Cannot possibly hurt you, right?

Like the trace amounts of LSD their mother took when she was pregnant. And the trace amount of lead in the paint on the rail of the crib they cut their teeth on. Amazing how trace amount can cause so much brain damage.

 

[gslack]

My experience with people is that those who don't understand the big picture love to wallow in the details, hoping to cover their tracks.

Two distant bodies in a vacuum. One radiates energy at a wavelength proportional to its absolute temperature. The other absorbs some of the energy and reflects some. It's stable temperature is a function of it's reflectivity and it's size, and will be that temperature at which it reflects exactly as much energy as it absorbs.

If the reflectivity is lowered, a new higher stable temperature will be reached to maintain the energy balance.

High school science. For those who stayed awake.

If you can't agree with that, you are not in a position to understand the complicated stuff.

And if BS and circle talk was going for 50 cents a pound you would be doing better than big oil...

So what? That wasn't in question schmuck what was in question was your application of the general knowledge. How does that correlate to AGW theory? What are you trying to actually say this time? Anything?

Are you saying that increased GH gas emissions increase reflectivity? Funny that would deny your previous claim as well as AGW theory in general due to the supposed ability of short wave EM radiation passing through GH gases relatively unhindered. So if it increases reflectivity now as you claim it cannot be transparent to short wave EM as per the theory now can it...

See dummy, no matter how much BS you try and cover it in, it's still meaningless in your incapable hands. You don't even understand your previous numbers or their significance do you? LOL, the fact is you pulled bits of boltzmann and read some drivel from some obscure blog, and tried to wing it.

here's a link to help you once again...

Black-body radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dude you really are just blindly winging it aren't you.... ROFL..

Did you agree or not?

Yes we agree you're a posturing buffon, and a sock.. A bad one...

Mamooth? Saigon? come get little brother he's too ignorant to be left alone..

 

[IanC]

Just a minute there IanC. I do know the difference !
I was the one who said that CO2 absorbs 15 µm IR and the re-despirses it in all possible directions. So sayeth also all the equations when they factor in "sr", the "solid angle".
And it is the IPCC that says that a portion of the re-dispersed 15 µm IR heats planet earth...so does Hansen, so does Roy Spencer and so did you only weeks ago.
Now you start "morphing" your statements away from that and have me "not understand the difference"....in true liberal fashion I might add !
Need I dig up again what you said when I put a thermistor in the focal point of a 6 inch reflector telescope and pointed it at a window pane that was at room temperature and at a -20 C cold country side ?
Need I dig up what you said to SSDD when he linked you to some "solar refrigerator" web pages ?
You know damn well what I said and what you have been saying...
So does everybody else who has been on this subject.

I wish you would go back and read those threads over again, and actually read my comments rather than work from your faulty memory of what you think I said. BTW, I totally pwned you on that subject. please.....dredge it up again.

You "totally pawned" me? And now I`m supposed to spend all day and "dredge up" all the b.s. you wrote? .."rather than work from my faulty memory"...??
You are shit out of luck there, because
a.) my memory is not faulty and
b.) Your bullshit is all over the place, in fact there is so much of it that it`s hard to ignore it.
Let me refresh your faulty memory with some samples of what you said:

hahahahahahahahaha, here we go again. do you want me to respond to each and every point again? not only is your memory faulty but you cannot even get it right when you are trying to quote me. at least two of the quotes are not mine, so I expect you to go back and edit your post to indicate that they were a mistake on your part. an apology for misquoting me would be nice but I wont hold my breath because I dont think your conduct is determined by a code of honour.

You can point the solar oven at a clear sky (away from the sun) in the daytime and still see the temperature drop to several degrees below the ambient. Backradiation simply is not happening.

definitely not mine.

Does simplified mean entirely different to you? The greenhouse effect as described by climate science is radiation from the atmosphere being absorbed by the surface of the earth and thereby warming the surface of the earth more than the sun alone could manage.

also definitely not mine.

this one is an odd duck-

you continue to ignore pointed questions about this natural process that forbids emission of radiation in certain directions.

it is likely that I did say it, but it is taken out of context. I was not the one who was saying that there is "this natural process that forbids emission of radiation in certain directions", I was complaining that the person who did state it was unwilling to explain or defend their statement.


I hope everyone can see why I dislike engaging with polarbear. he distorts, misremembers, or just makes up what he thinks I said. then puts up these strawmen in his posts, his longggggg and ramblinggggggg posts. I will address a few this time but I reserve the right to ignore polarbear anytime I choose.

 

[IanC]

while I do not agree with Trenberth's energy budget, it is a reasonable place to start. it states that 161 W/m2 solar radiation is absorbed by the surface. it also has surface loss as 17 thermal, 80 evaporation and 396 radiation, for a total of 493. 493-161=332 w/m2 loss. so why isnt the surface cooling?

You don`t even comprehend Trenberth`s version for dummies,
which shows "radiative heat transfer" as 396 from the ground up and 333 watts back radiating and ask 493-161=332 w/m2 loss. so why isnt the surface cooling?

Hasn`t it dawned on you that once you get to the top of the atmosphere that the only way (heat) energy can be shed is by radiation...only a complete idiot would add "17 thermal, 80 evaporation and 396 radiation, for a total of 493."

Reading the rest of your crap it becomes abundantly clear that you do qualify as a idiot when it comes to physics.

let's put up the diagram

you find it offensive that I just add up what I saw on the diagram? OK, lets just count the IR radiation. 396 up from the surface, 161 down from the sun. it doesnt add up. the surface should be cooling. I dont know offhand what a 15C surface should be radiating, if it is 400w then the diagram is misleading, if it is 500w then the diagram is not. it does not matter to my point though. you guys say there is no backradiation!! without energy coming back from the atmosphere there is no way to balance the budget. but of course there is backradiation and the system is in equilibrium to a very fine degree.

 

[IanC]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-92.html#post7155354
Every post that you made so far shows that you are a total physics dimwit
So how the fck. do you "magnify sunlight" ?
That tells me that you still don`t have clue what the difference between power and energy is.
If I focus the number of watts that 1 m^2 receives from the sun on 1 cm^2 it is still the same amount of watts as it was before when it was spread out over 1 m^2
No I can`t "magnify" diffused light it unless I use a photon multiplier like we do in state of the art spectrophotometers, but "mamooth" apparently can, just by painting the walls of a room white.
And you used the same idiotic mechanism to defend Spencer and Hansen over and over again.
But you have no idea how to explain it.
As soon as you get cornered by somebody who does know physics, then you got "back radiation" from a cooler object and if you boxed yourself into another corner then you start denying your "back radiation" and call it something else, like a "radiation imbalance"
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-80.html#post7127507
When you blabbered about photons from a distant red star heating up a white star it was even more ridiculous than that.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-81.html#post7127960
Then all over sudden back radiation is happening again:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-93.html#post7159225
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-81.html#post7128506
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-75.html#post7120214

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/279415-agw-atmospheric-physics-75.html#post7120532

here we have another interesting idea that polarbear wishes to distort. he has a problem with the word 'magnify' rather than, perhaps, 'focus'. the sun sends us highly ordered (all going in the same direction) shortwave radiation that is capable of doing work. ***important point***. capable of doing work. once heated by solar radiation, the surface gives off disordered (most directions) longwave radiation that is much less capable of doing work. once heated by the surface, the atmosphere gives off totally disordered even longer longwave radiation that is even less capable of doing work.

it is my contention that a small change in solar input is more capable of causing change in the earth's climate than the same amount of change in the atmosphere or surface because the ability to do work is much less. all sources of energy are not equal. a battery can do a lot of things including heating a container of water. the heated container of water? not so much even though it now has the energy. I even personally invited polarbear to join the post I started to discuss the very same idea.

if you are driving through fog at night the water droplets disperse the ordered light from your headlights and the area close to you is more illuminated but the desired effect of being able to see farther away is compromised. CO2 in the air disperses 15 band IR and warms the near atmosphere but compromises the desired effect of shedding IR directly out into space.

WRT the one star heating the other star scenario- surface temps are dependent on two factors. 1.the energy source 2.the ability of the surface to shed energy. changing either one will affect the equilibrium temp. the ability to shed energy is calculated by k(Th^4- Tc^4). the area of intersection between the two stars will disperse much less energy because Tstar is much hotter than Tspace. if you impair the ability to shed enegy that will increase the temp just as surely as increasing the source of the energy. it really is just a simple physics concept that anyone with even a high school education should be able to understand.

 

[IanC]

And here we see your usual BS and dance routine... How predictable...

Notice you completely ignore my links and what they say? yes focus on your videos.. Why? Because they aren't my links are they... Of course Ian, of course, you're an expert on all things mathematical when it suits you and when it doesn't you deny the implication...

So which is it now oh master BS mathematics? Are you an expert or not? You are right critiquing the validity of experiments listed on the MIT news page.. yes of course you can do that because you're an internet "expert"... Or are you not an expert now? Which is it fake?

BTW, now care to address the fact you have been shown again, in two separate threads lying and being completely dishonest? No thought not..

Remember you original claim here schmuck?

"Hahaha care to quote where I said I was a mathematician? I am literate in math and science but so what?

Why are you bringing up the double slit experiment? You had nothing to say about superposition or the polarization paradox, instead you linked to a mechanical wave study in oil. Not many people confuse light waves with waves propagated in a media."

YOUR WORDS FRAUD...

The first underlined part, you try the fake humility act. Poorly I might add, because as we see here you feel authoritative enough to critique the entire study now... How completely expected..

The next underlined part you claimed my previous post in the other thread was about, and I quote you directly; "a mechanical wave study in oil" . Really IAN? You fraudualent little man, completely ignore the point it showed my post was accurate and the experiment I listed was as well..

The fact is my post then, as now was, is and will be correct. And you sir are a lair. You can't even admit when you screw up, how pathetic...

Please play dumb and confound this with BS again, your dancing is funny..

why dont you drop the whole 'liar and fraud' thing. I am obviously neither. your original link to this subject did not have enough info to attract my attention and you did not point out any of the highlights. this time you gave an MIT release which piqued my interest and led me to investigate more thoroughly. I then posted up easily accessible information on an interesting subject for others to enjoy. on the other hand, when I tried to talk to you about polarization with respect to the need of matter to be present, I pointed out the paradox and why it was interesting and you chose not to respond in any way.

but enough of that. we have an interesting topic to discuss if you want to. why do you think this experiment is more than an exercise in harmonics?

No I won't drop it, because it's true.. You are a liar and a fraud. One minute you claim the mathematical chops to criticize and diminish work from MIT. And the next you claim you're no expert and didn't claim to be. Obviously you think you are, but so far when tested you are found lacking.

My original post on the issue was indeed correct, and this again confirms it. You assume to know everything about something without even reading it, and instead of admitting your mistake you try this same old tired song and dance..

Again, you're a liar and a fraud. You lied about my previous posts, you lied about the relevancy of the experiment on both that and this discussion, and now when it's shown true again, you blame me for it..

Worthless...Completely lacking of any ethical backbone..

whatever.

I suppose you think that studying snail shells will 'unlock' new secrets of the golden ratio, or perhaps analyzing the arrangement of flower petals will bring new insights into number theory. personally I just think Mother nature likes to use mathematical themes in her work, even if they are often less than precise. the walkers are like that. not very precise and it takes a lot of work to make them simulate quantum like actions. but they are very cool to watch.

 

[gslack]

why dont you drop the whole 'liar and fraud' thing. I am obviously neither. your original link to this subject did not have enough info to attract my attention and you did not point out any of the highlights. this time you gave an MIT release which piqued my interest and led me to investigate more thoroughly. I then posted up easily accessible information on an interesting subject for others to enjoy. on the other hand, when I tried to talk to you about polarization with respect to the need of matter to be present, I pointed out the paradox and why it was interesting and you chose not to respond in any way.

but enough of that. we have an interesting topic to discuss if you want to. why do you think this experiment is more than an exercise in harmonics?

No I won't drop it, because it's true.. You are a liar and a fraud. One minute you claim the mathematical chops to criticize and diminish work from MIT. And the next you claim you're no expert and didn't claim to be. Obviously you think you are, but so far when tested you are found lacking.

My original post on the issue was indeed correct, and this again confirms it. You assume to know everything about something without even reading it, and instead of admitting your mistake you try this same old tired song and dance..

Again, you're a liar and a fraud. You lied about my previous posts, you lied about the relevancy of the experiment on both that and this discussion, and now when it's shown true again, you blame me for it..

Worthless...Completely lacking of any ethical backbone..

whatever.

I suppose you think that studying snail shells will 'unlock' new secrets of the golden ratio, or perhaps analyzing the arrangement of flower petals will bring new insights into number theory. personally I just think Mother nature likes to use mathematical themes in her work, even if they are often less than precise. the walkers are like that. not very precise and it takes a lot of work to make them simulate quantum like actions. but they are very cool to watch.

And here we see you change your position on it again...

So Ian which is it? Do you think the MIT experiment is a valid one or nonsense? You seem to be floundering on it. Can't even show a backbone when it comes to your own opinion. Pathetic...

Thanks Ian, it's been a real hoot watching you dance..ROFL

 

[Foxfyre]

Well again my interest here is not to 'show up' other members. my interest is the truth of whatever climate change might be occuring and to protect my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities from those who would falsify, skew, misrepresent, omit, or manufacture scientific data in ways that give governments 'justification' to take those from me. And I am ever more conscious of the possibility that such 'justification' is designed to increase the prestige, influence, and personal fortunes of those who will then hold all the power and/or, like Al Gore, will become multi-millionaires by exploiting it.

In the process of research by those who have nothing to lose by the position they take, here is another scientific voice suggesting the possibility of naturally occurring global cooling. And he also suggests that if AGW is warming the climate, it might help offset some of the worst consequences of the next 'little ice age" that will almost certainly occur.

His theory of 'ice drift' is one that we don't see much within the parameters of the debate.

In my book Ice Drift, Ocean Circulation And Climate Change, I look not just at older data that otherwise would never have seen the light of day but also new data that I believe is persuasive that ice drifting can be as predictive as it is archival. That is, to understand the future, at least in terms of climate, one must understand the past. Any computer model designed to predict future climate change such as greenhouse gas-induced global warming must also reproduce the reconstructed past changes of ice drift in order to be considered reliable. Ice rafting is not just a passive recorder of past surface-ocean circulation, but also actively influences and changes present ocean circulation as well.

At present we do not yet know if the circulation changes occur over one or more decades relevant to humans. This is simply because the low, and in some cases, very low sedimentation rates of the polar oceans do not permit time resolution at these short scales. But recent progress in the analysis of Arctic Ocean sediments has shown that it is possible to find areas with high resolution. This, and the prospect of new equipment in the form of a polar icebreaker able to be on station 200 days per year, hold the promise that the mystery of the driving forces of climate change may be eventually solved.

In the meantime, we should prepare ourselves for the possibility that our cherished ideas about global warming may be, if not dead wrong, only partially correct. Intriguing recent evidence gathered from ice-rafted debris looks remarkably similar to a much older pattern that preceded an ice age. We may have to entertain the possibility that Earth’s natural climate development may be on a return to another such period, or at least to colder conditions than we now experience. If so, and ironically, the very greenhouse warming we fear may either mitigate the cooling or cancel it altogether.

Jens Bischof is author of Ice Drift, Ocean Circulation And Climate Change and is a research assistant professor in Old Dominion’s Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences.
Ice In The Greenhouse: Earth May Be Cooling, Not Warming

 

[mamooth]

You can point the solar oven at a clear sky (away from the sun) in the daytime and still see the temperature drop to several degrees below the ambient. Backradiation simply is not happening.

PolarBear doesn't seem to understand the simple concept that diffuse radiation can't be focused by the oven. Only near-point sources can be focused. That's why a solar oven heats up if aimed at a near-point source like the sun. Backradiation is diffuse, so it doesn't get focused, so it only enters the oven in the same diffuse non-concentrated state. That tiny energy input is balanced by the thermal radiation out of the oven, so there's no temperature increase.

Using the oven as a refrigerator is interesting. You have to insulate the oven from conduction, and all the backradiation except from the narrow window. And you need a cold sky with lower backradiation amounts The parabolic shape focuses IR from the larger surface area of the oven and beams it out the window, while only an insignificant amount of diffuse atmospheric backradiation comes back in, so temperature drops. It almost looks like free energy, but it's really sun-driven at its root, with the temp difference between the object and cold atmosphere being the driving force for the work done.

And now, a thermo joke. The 3 laws of thermodynamics.

1. You can't win.
2. You can't even break even.
3. You're not allowed to stop playing.

 

[PMZ]

And if BS and circle talk was going for 50 cents a pound you would be doing better than big oil...

So what? That wasn't in question schmuck what was in question was your application of the general knowledge. How does that correlate to AGW theory? What are you trying to actually say this time? Anything?

Are you saying that increased GH gas emissions increase reflectivity? Funny that would deny your previous claim as well as AGW theory in general due to the supposed ability of short wave EM radiation passing through GH gases relatively unhindered. So if it increases reflectivity now as you claim it cannot be transparent to short wave EM as per the theory now can it...

See dummy, no matter how much BS you try and cover it in, it's still meaningless in your incapable hands. You don't even understand your previous numbers or their significance do you? LOL, the fact is you pulled bits of boltzmann and read some drivel from some obscure blog, and tried to wing it.

here's a link to help you once again...

Black-body radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dude you really are just blindly winging it aren't you.... ROFL..

Did you agree or not?

Yes we agree you're a posturing buffon, and a sock.. A bad one...

Mamooth? Saigon? come get little brother he's too ignorant to be left alone..

Most people understand why the Faithful Believe. They've been promised a place in Heaven and, with no proof either way, they go with the preferable future.

Why do conservatives believe then in what is certainly, according to prevailing science, wrong?

They've been promised the heaven of lower costs now and outside of their lifespan, nothing else matters?

The same argument that keeps people smoking. Pleasure now, consequences later.

Responsible people have to put up with paying the consequences of smokers and science deniers.

Wrong certainly, but what saves us is democracy. We can render impotent in government those who prefer irresponsibility.

That will certainly not change their minds but will change their impact on us.

Parents sometimes call that "time out".

 

[PMZ]

You can point the solar oven at a clear sky (away from the sun) in the daytime and still see the temperature drop to several degrees below the ambient. Backradiation simply is not happening.

PolarBear doesn't seem to understand the simple concept that diffuse radiation can't be focused by the oven. Only near-point sources can be focused. That's why a solar oven heats up if aimed at a near-point source like the sun. Backradiation is diffuse, so it doesn't get focused, so it only enters the oven in the same diffuse non-concentrated state. That tiny energy input is balanced by the thermal radiation out of the oven, so there's no temperature increase.

Using the oven as a refrigerator is interesting. You have to insulate the oven from conduction, and all the backradiation except from the narrow window. And you need a cold sky with lower backradiation amounts The parabolic shape focuses IR from the larger surface area of the oven and beams it out the window, while only an insignificant amount of diffuse atmospheric backradiation comes back in, so temperature drops. It almost looks like free energy, but it's really sun-driven at its root, with the temp difference between the object and cold atmosphere being the driving force for the work done.

And now, a thermo joke. The 3 laws of thermodynamics.

1. You can't win.
2. You can't even break even.
3. You're not allowed to stop playing.

Both scientists and deniers love to parade across the stage casts of thousands of colorful characters who dance and sing esoterica and entertain the audience with the illusions of relevence. It's fun. Maybe even bragging a little.

But, it's only entertainment.

The real story is empty space, a hot sun, a cold, distant planet, and radiation heat transfer basics. High school physics. Simple equations. Steady state planetary temperature depends only on size (assuming spherical shape), and reflectivity (emissivity sometimes stands in for reflectivity).

The real story is impossible to even question much less deny.

The play can be written innumerable ways. The fictional ways inseperable from the non-fiction ways to those with imagination instead of science.

 

[flacaltenn]

What do you think is driving the conservative denial of science?

Simply the fact that the science isn't complete and politics grabs on anything to attack a issue. You can see even people like Hansen admitting that maybe we didn't understand it like we once thought with this Aerosol debate or the ocean one....

This is a opening for people to attack the issue very hard. Science evolves within a way that invites this.

We should just admit that co2 is a driver within the climate system that helps bring on a positive within it. No more or less should state the issue. We should then point it out clearly to the public that there's many negative ones too. Educating them on why the temperature chart looks like it does is very important within context is where we're lacking. Only then can we bring up the bads of this positive.

The conservative movement doesn't give a damn about the science as it is a economic movement.

Two bodies in a vacuum. One radiates energy. The other is passive. When the passive body reflects as much as it absorbs, it remains at constant temperature. If its reflectance lowers, it must, must, must move to a higher temperature in order to achieve and maintain energy balance.

There are simply no other possibilities. Everything else is about the details of the process to restore balance.

Greenhouse gas concentration in our atmosphere have the affect of lowering our reflectance.

Pretty severely mangled, but better than the combative crap that I've seen on this thread so far..

My gosh folks -- its not that hard once you realize there are SEVERAL different text books required here. The laws of EM propagation have NOTHING to do with laws of Thermodynamics.

EM energy in the form of light or IR or UV CAN AND DO propagate from cooler to hotter objects.

I can't imagine why Polar and SSDD want to deny the role of GHGases in warming the planet. And I abhor your inference that religious people can't comprehend or practice science.

It's actually quite simple and most of the errors I've seen here is because of the confusion between EM radiation and heating. They follow different rules. And YOU are only partly right about CO2 "lowering our reflectance". It is not a great reflector reflector of the INCIDENT sunlight which comes into the surface in a broad band of wavelengths, but it does ABSORB the longer wave IR radiation that is generated by the Black Body effect of the earth's surface. Not as good as dominating water vapor, and it does saturate in its ability to convert long wave IR to heat, but nonetheless, this conversion of long wave to heat in the troposphere DOES heat the troposphere. EVEN IF the troposphere is cooler than the surface.

I could heat hamburgers with IR thru a vacuum tube with no Thermodynamics involved in the transfer. Just as the Sun heats the earth thru the cold vacuum of space. Furthermore, I COULD lower the emitter temperature of the IR heater to near Zero and still use it efficiently to heat burgers at a distance. You are just spoiled because most EM emitters "self-heat" and end up being quite hot because of the materials involved and the inefficiencies of converting electrical power in EM radiation.. But it's not REQUIRED that an EM emission source be "warmer than the impinged surface" in order to contribute to thermal energy in that material.. No science at all says that...

I could blast nitrogen with long wave IR all night long and not raise it's temperature. But because of the absorption bands in GHGases, it will HEAT if radiated at the earth's Black Body frequencies. That's the GreenHouse. It's NOT a material like glass that's preventing convection or conduction heating. That's a disservice in the naming of the effect. It's a change in the THERMAL RESISTANCE of that thin layer of atmosphere caused by the mater4ial composition of that layer.

All the rest you need to know comes from the Thermo book which defines that the AMOUNT of heat energy flow is proportional to the Temp diffs between the surfaces. If you raise a thermal barrier ANYWHERE in the trop. , then the heat transfer to space will slow down the THERMAL energy flow towards space. ((Thus the confusion about detecting a cooler or warmer Stratosphere in the presence of warming. It's not clear that a couple degree barrier in the Trop will have a distinct and detectable fingerprint farther up because its too small and the heat paths and mixing are too complex))

That's it.. and there are good and valid reasons to discount the hysteria about CO2 forced heating of the earth surface. But in THEORY, and in real life, it DOES what the "GreenHouse" theory says it does. Only not as a prime driver of the climate as the wacky believers declare...

THIMK a little about the diff between your Field and Wave class and your Thermo class and then we'll all be on a better track here..

 

[flacaltenn]

It's one thing to believe that the government of, by, and for the people can participate in the solution of national problems, it's another to assume that we can bend science to our will. Science is not about pleasing the human race, it's about what is.

What does THAT have to do with your obvious propensity to want to CONTROL all aspects of peoples lives?? Do you somehow believe that control and removing choices is the essence of "of, by and for the people"? Do you think that MANDATES and edicts are because I'm too science ignorant to buy the proper lightbulb or not drown myself in a Big Gulp or to protect myself from your EPA screw-ups like MTBE or Ethanol or declaring CO2 a pollutant?

you're a good dancer.. don't know if you can do anything else..

First, I have no idea about you personally.

Second, if I have to pay for the consequences of other people's poor judgement, yes, I think that I should have a say in their behavior. That's a liberal concept called holding people accountable for their behavior. A great way to treat kids, pets and citizens.

Freedom to me means free from the impact of others, especially irresponsible others, on my life. I choose to live responsibly so the laws that make make me free that way, have no consequences to my life. I choose to live in ways that don't require others to clean up after me.

The contract that I have with my government prevents them from legislating my behavior in specific areas detailed in the Bill of Rights. None of that has changed one iota over my 70 years.

People who, out of ignorance, choose to contribute to the problem of AGW, and refuse to participate in the solution to those problems, cost us billions of dollars and hundreds of lives every year for wars maintaining our sources and clean up from extreme weather. That's a huge imposition on responsible citizens who pay the majority of those bills.

Wow man.. Nuff said there. we can just pack up USMB at this point and replace it all with your Leftist mantra..

That's a liberal concept called holding people accountable for their behavior. A great way to treat kids, pets and citizens.

Hope your pets understand the concept of a jury or science...

There is the ESSENCE of condescencing, tyrannical want-to-beism that is my political opponent who will NEVER understand choice and liberty and who would never hesitate to use science as a weapon to meet out the justice that they envision they are entitled to...

Not to mention your complete ignorance of the Construction of the Bill of Rights. There is a black hole of knowledge right there.

Good job Dude or Dudette.. You made my day... I finally got the evidence I needed without even waterboarding..

Mark this thread right at the PMZ quote.. That's all you need to know about about the leftist opposition...

PS.. You no where NEAR a Liberal.. I'M a liberal.. You're a party animal leftist...

 

[PMZ]

What does THAT have to do with your obvious propensity to want to CONTROL all aspects of peoples lives?? Do you somehow believe that control and removing choices is the essence of "of, by and for the people"? Do you think that MANDATES and edicts are because I'm too science ignorant to buy the proper lightbulb or not drown myself in a Big Gulp or to protect myself from your EPA screw-ups like MTBE or Ethanol or declaring CO2 a pollutant?

you're a good dancer.. don't know if you can do anything else..

First, I have no idea about you personally.

Second, if I have to pay for the consequences of other people's poor judgement, yes, I think that I should have a say in their behavior. That's a liberal concept called holding people accountable for their behavior. A great way to treat kids, pets and citizens.

Freedom to me means free from the impact of others, especially irresponsible others, on my life. I choose to live responsibly so the laws that make make me free that way, have no consequences to my life. I choose to live in ways that don't require others to clean up after me.

The contract that I have with my government prevents them from legislating my behavior in specific areas detailed in the Bill of Rights. None of that has changed one iota over my 70 years.

People who, out of ignorance, choose to contribute to the problem of AGW, and refuse to participate in the solution to those problems, cost us billions of dollars and hundreds of lives every year for wars maintaining our sources and clean up from extreme weather. That's a huge imposition on responsible citizens who pay the majority of those bills.

Wow man.. Nuff said there. we can just pack up USMB at this point and replace it all with your Leftist mantra..

That's a liberal concept called holding people accountable for their behavior. A great way to treat kids, pets and citizens.

Hope your pets understand the concept of a jury or science...

There is the ESSENCE of condescencing, tyrannical want-to-beism that is my political opponent who will NEVER understand choice and liberty and who would never hesitate to use science as a weapon to meet out the justice that they envision they are entitled to...

Good job Dude or Dudette.. You made my day... I finally got the evidence I needed without even waterboarding..

As is typical, I have no idea what you are thinking. So, I will search for some clarity through a couple of simple questions.

Do you think that part of our contract with government is protection from others (foreign or domestic) who would like their freedom at our expense?

I assume that you consider the military and law enforcement legitimate duties of government, right?

We pay them to, by force if necessary, protect our freedom from those who would by force take it away. By invasion, tyranny, slavery, murder, theft, reckless disregard for life, kidnapping, terrorism, etc.

I need to know if we are on the same page still at this point.

 

[PMZ]

Simply the fact that the science isn't complete and politics grabs on anything to attack a issue. You can see even people like Hansen admitting that maybe we didn't understand it like we once thought with this Aerosol debate or the ocean one....

This is a opening for people to attack the issue very hard. Science evolves within a way that invites this.

We should just admit that co2 is a driver within the climate system that helps bring on a positive within it. No more or less should state the issue. We should then point it out clearly to the public that there's many negative ones too. Educating them on why the temperature chart looks like it does is very important within context is where we're lacking. Only then can we bring up the bads of this positive.

The conservative movement doesn't give a damn about the science as it is a economic movement.

Two bodies in a vacuum. One radiates energy. The other is passive. When the passive body reflects as much as it absorbs, it remains at constant temperature. If its reflectance lowers, it must, must, must move to a higher temperature in order to achieve and maintain energy balance.

There are simply no other possibilities. Everything else is about the details of the process to restore balance.

Greenhouse gas concentration in our atmosphere have the affect of lowering our reflectance.

Pretty severely mangled, but better than the combative crap that I've seen on this thread so far..

My gosh folks -- its not that hard once you realize there are SEVERAL different text books required here. The laws of EM propagation have NOTHING to do with laws of Thermodynamics.

EM energy in the form of light or IR or UV CAN AND DO propagate from cooler to hotter objects.

I can't imagine why Polar and SSDD want to deny the role of GHGases in warming the planet. And I abhor your inference that religious people can't comprehend or practice science.

It's actually quite simple and most of the errors I've seen here is because of the confusion between EM radiation and heating. They follow different rules. And YOU are only partly right about CO2 "lowering our reflectance". It is not a great reflector reflector of the INCIDENT sunlight which comes into the surface in a broad band of wavelengths, but it does ABSORB the longer wave IR radiation that is generated by the Black Body effect of the earth's surface. Not as good as dominating water vapor, and it does saturate in its ability to convert long wave IR to heat, but nonetheless, this conversion of long wave to heat in the troposphere DOES heat the troposphere. EVEN IF the troposphere is cooler than the surface.

I could heat hamburgers with IR thru a vacuum tube with no Thermodynamics involved in the transfer. Just as the Sun heats the earth thru the cold vacuum of space. Furthermore, I COULD lower the emitter temperature of the IR heater to near Zero and still use it efficiently to heat burgers at a distance. You are just spoiled because most EM emitters "self-heat" and end up being quite hot because of the materials involved and the inefficiencies of converting electrical power in EM radiation.. But it's not REQUIRED that an EM emission source be "warmer than the impinged surface" in order to contribute to thermal energy in that material.. No science at all says that...

I could blast nitrogen with long wave IR all night long and not raise it's temperature. But because of the absorption bands in GHGases, it will HEAT if radiated at the earth's Black Body frequencies. That's the GreenHouse. It's NOT a material like glass that's preventing convection or conduction heating. That's a disservice in the naming of the effect. It's a change in the THERMAL RESISTANCE of that thin layer of atmosphere caused by the mater4ial composition of that layer.

All the rest you need to know comes from the Thermo book which defines that the AMOUNT of heat energy flow is proportional to the Temp diffs between the surfaces. If you raise a thermal barrier ANYWHERE in the trop. , then the heat transfer to space will slow down the THERMAL energy flow towards space. ((Thus the confusion about detecting a cooler or warmer Stratosphere in the presence of warming. It's not clear that a couple degree barrier in the Trop will have a distinct and detectable fingerprint farther up because its too small and the heat paths and mixing are too complex))

That's it.. and there are good and valid reasons to discount the hysteria about CO2 forced heating of the earth surface. But in THEORY, and in real life, it DOES what the "GreenHouse" theory says it does. Only not as a prime driver of the climate as the wacky believers declare...

THIMK a little about the diff between your Field and Wave class and your Thermo class and then we'll all be on a better track here..

"The laws of EM propagation have NOTHING to do with laws of Thermodynamics."

Radiant heat trransfer is not part of thermodynamics???

 

[flacaltenn]

Two bodies in a vacuum. One radiates energy. The other is passive. When the passive body reflects as much as it absorbs, it remains at constant temperature. If its reflectance lowers, it must, must, must move to a higher temperature in order to achieve and maintain energy balance.

There are simply no other possibilities. Everything else is about the details of the process to restore balance.

Greenhouse gas concentration in our atmosphere have the affect of lowering our reflectance.

Pretty severely mangled, but better than the combative crap that I've seen on this thread so far..

My gosh folks -- its not that hard once you realize there are SEVERAL different text books required here. The laws of EM propagation have NOTHING to do with laws of Thermodynamics.

EM energy in the form of light or IR or UV CAN AND DO propagate from cooler to hotter objects.

I can't imagine why Polar and SSDD want to deny the role of GHGases in warming the planet. And I abhor your inference that religious people can't comprehend or practice science.

It's actually quite simple and most of the errors I've seen here is because of the confusion between EM radiation and heating. They follow different rules. And YOU are only partly right about CO2 "lowering our reflectance". It is not a great reflector reflector of the INCIDENT sunlight which comes into the surface in a broad band of wavelengths, but it does ABSORB the longer wave IR radiation that is generated by the Black Body effect of the earth's surface. Not as good as dominating water vapor, and it does saturate in its ability to convert long wave IR to heat, but nonetheless, this conversion of long wave to heat in the troposphere DOES heat the troposphere. EVEN IF the troposphere is cooler than the surface.

I could heat hamburgers with IR thru a vacuum tube with no Thermodynamics involved in the transfer. Just as the Sun heats the earth thru the cold vacuum of space. Furthermore, I COULD lower the emitter temperature of the IR heater to near Zero and still use it efficiently to heat burgers at a distance. You are just spoiled because most EM emitters "self-heat" and end up being quite hot because of the materials involved and the inefficiencies of converting electrical power in EM radiation.. But it's not REQUIRED that an EM emission source be "warmer than the impinged surface" in order to contribute to thermal energy in that material.. No science at all says that...

I could blast nitrogen with long wave IR all night long and not raise it's temperature. But because of the absorption bands in GHGases, it will HEAT if radiated at the earth's Black Body frequencies. That's the GreenHouse. It's NOT a material like glass that's preventing convection or conduction heating. That's a disservice in the naming of the effect. It's a change in the THERMAL RESISTANCE of that thin layer of atmosphere caused by the mater4ial composition of that layer.

All the rest you need to know comes from the Thermo book which defines that the AMOUNT of heat energy flow is proportional to the Temp diffs between the surfaces. If you raise a thermal barrier ANYWHERE in the trop. , then the heat transfer to space will slow down the THERMAL energy flow towards space. ((Thus the confusion about detecting a cooler or warmer Stratosphere in the presence of warming. It's not clear that a couple degree barrier in the Trop will have a distinct and detectable fingerprint farther up because its too small and the heat paths and mixing are too complex))

That's it.. and there are good and valid reasons to discount the hysteria about CO2 forced heating of the earth surface. But in THEORY, and in real life, it DOES what the "GreenHouse" theory says it does. Only not as a prime driver of the climate as the wacky believers declare...

THIMK a little about the diff between your Field and Wave class and your Thermo class and then we'll all be on a better track here..

"The laws of EM propagation have NOTHING to do with laws of Thermodynamics."

Radiant heat trransfer is not part of thermodynamics???

Not in terms of laws of THERMAL energy transfer. It's a definition for the fraction of heat energy that is ejected from a blackbody under ElectroMagnetic rules of propagation.. Of course -- it's gonna get mentioned and accounted for --- but does not obey the rules of thermal energy propagation.

 

[PMZ]

Pretty severely mangled, but better than the combative crap that I've seen on this thread so far..

My gosh folks -- its not that hard once you realize there are SEVERAL different text books required here. The laws of EM propagation have NOTHING to do with laws of Thermodynamics.

EM energy in the form of light or IR or UV CAN AND DO propagate from cooler to hotter objects.

I can't imagine why Polar and SSDD want to deny the role of GHGases in warming the planet. And I abhor your inference that religious people can't comprehend or practice science.

It's actually quite simple and most of the errors I've seen here is because of the confusion between EM radiation and heating. They follow different rules. And YOU are only partly right about CO2 "lowering our reflectance". It is not a great reflector reflector of the INCIDENT sunlight which comes into the surface in a broad band of wavelengths, but it does ABSORB the longer wave IR radiation that is generated by the Black Body effect of the earth's surface. Not as good as dominating water vapor, and it does saturate in its ability to convert long wave IR to heat, but nonetheless, this conversion of long wave to heat in the troposphere DOES heat the troposphere. EVEN IF the troposphere is cooler than the surface.

I could heat hamburgers with IR thru a vacuum tube with no Thermodynamics involved in the transfer. Just as the Sun heats the earth thru the cold vacuum of space. Furthermore, I COULD lower the emitter temperature of the IR heater to near Zero and still use it efficiently to heat burgers at a distance. You are just spoiled because most EM emitters "self-heat" and end up being quite hot because of the materials involved and the inefficiencies of converting electrical power in EM radiation.. But it's not REQUIRED that an EM emission source be "warmer than the impinged surface" in order to contribute to thermal energy in that material.. No science at all says that...

I could blast nitrogen with long wave IR all night long and not raise it's temperature. But because of the absorption bands in GHGases, it will HEAT if radiated at the earth's Black Body frequencies. That's the GreenHouse. It's NOT a material like glass that's preventing convection or conduction heating. That's a disservice in the naming of the effect. It's a change in the THERMAL RESISTANCE of that thin layer of atmosphere caused by the mater4ial composition of that layer.

All the rest you need to know comes from the Thermo book which defines that the AMOUNT of heat energy flow is proportional to the Temp diffs between the surfaces. If you raise a thermal barrier ANYWHERE in the trop. , then the heat transfer to space will slow down the THERMAL energy flow towards space. ((Thus the confusion about detecting a cooler or warmer Stratosphere in the presence of warming. It's not clear that a couple degree barrier in the Trop will have a distinct and detectable fingerprint farther up because its too small and the heat paths and mixing are too complex))

That's it.. and there are good and valid reasons to discount the hysteria about CO2 forced heating of the earth surface. But in THEORY, and in real life, it DOES what the "GreenHouse" theory says it does. Only not as a prime driver of the climate as the wacky believers declare...

THIMK a little about the diff between your Field and Wave class and your Thermo class and then we'll all be on a better track here..

"The laws of EM propagation have NOTHING to do with laws of Thermodynamics."

Radiant heat trransfer is not part of thermodynamics???

Not in terms of laws of THERMAL energy transfer. It's a definition for the fraction of heat energy that is ejected from a blackbody under ElectroMagnetic rules of propagation.. Of course -- it's gonna get mentioned and accounted for --- but does not obey the rules of thermal energy propagation.

My Thermo professors are going to be sorry to hear that. They considered it equal in importance to conduction and convection in accounting for the dynamics of heat transfer.

 

[flacaltenn]

First, I have no idea about you personally.

Second, if I have to pay for the consequences of other people's poor judgement, yes, I think that I should have a say in their behavior. That's a liberal concept called holding people accountable for their behavior. A great way to treat kids, pets and citizens.

Freedom to me means free from the impact of others, especially irresponsible others, on my life. I choose to live responsibly so the laws that make make me free that way, have no consequences to my life. I choose to live in ways that don't require others to clean up after me.

The contract that I have with my government prevents them from legislating my behavior in specific areas detailed in the Bill of Rights. None of that has changed one iota over my 70 years.

People who, out of ignorance, choose to contribute to the problem of AGW, and refuse to participate in the solution to those problems, cost us billions of dollars and hundreds of lives every year for wars maintaining our sources and clean up from extreme weather. That's a huge imposition on responsible citizens who pay the majority of those bills.

Wow man.. Nuff said there. we can just pack up USMB at this point and replace it all with your Leftist mantra..

That's a liberal concept called holding people accountable for their behavior. A great way to treat kids, pets and citizens.

Hope your pets understand the concept of a jury or science...

There is the ESSENCE of condescencing, tyrannical want-to-beism that is my political opponent who will NEVER understand choice and liberty and who would never hesitate to use science as a weapon to meet out the justice that they envision they are entitled to...

Good job Dude or Dudette.. You made my day... I finally got the evidence I needed without even waterboarding..

As is typical, I have no idea what you are thinking. So, I will search for some clarity through a couple of simple questions.

Do you think that part of our contract with government is protection from others (foreign or domestic) who would like their freedom at our expense?

I assume that you consider the military and law enforcement legitimate duties of government, right?

We pay them to, by force if necessary, protect our freedom from those who would by force take it away. By invasion, tyranny, slavery, murder, theft, reckless disregard for life, kidnapping, terrorism, etc.

I need to know if we are on the same page still at this point.

Point is ---- by your words, we are not and never will be in the SAME BOOK.. Never mind the same page.. I told you CLEARLY how offensive I find your political point of view to be. When children, pets and citizens are lumped into your same prescription for the justification of government power.

And how badly you mangle the Intent and Meaning of the Bill of Rights (for example).

Answer to your contorted questioning.. You as a citizen are welcome to try and sue me for using the wrong lightbulbs.. But you have no right to commandeer the power of the Federal govt to prevent me from buying them thru force of law until you can consistently win law suits confirming your direct harm.. Or even a class action law suit or two...

 

[flacaltenn]

"The laws of EM propagation have NOTHING to do with laws of Thermodynamics."

Radiant heat trransfer is not part of thermodynamics???

Not in terms of laws of THERMAL energy transfer. It's a definition for the fraction of heat energy that is ejected from a blackbody under ElectroMagnetic rules of propagation.. Of course -- it's gonna get mentioned and accounted for --- but does not obey the rules of thermal energy propagation.

My Thermo professors are going to be sorry to hear that. They considered it equal in importance to conduction and convection in accounting for the dynamics of heat transfer.

Naww.. They're quite happy to let the Fields and Waves professor handle all the details of that energy once it's left the surface.. Doesn't need to be analyzed. Just accounted for in the overall energy budget...