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

[PMZ]

It has nothing at all to do with black bodies. It applies to all bodies. It applies to all molecules. It applies to all spatial bodies.

Perhaps you should learn the difference between a blackbody and graybodies of varying degrees.

Perhaps you should learn that all bodies in space warm and radiate just enough to maintain energy balance.

 

[PMZ]

Are you working on this chance to embarrass and defeat me??? Please feel free to work with the other 1/10 of your brain PMZ and produce for us both the warming projected SOLELY FROM CO2 and the wild claims made by the IPCC, the model butchers, and all your heroes including Al Gore..

Here's a hint --- Even AL GORE knows that the temp rise due to CO2 alone is not hysterical enough "to play on your FEARS"......

Quit scratching your ass, talk to your sock or clone and do some work...

Let's start with what we apparently agree on.

1) The more greenhouse gas molecules that there are in the atmosphere the more longwave radiation into space is reduced. However there is no effect on the incoming shortwave solar radiation.

2) Any body in a vacuum can only be affected by radiant energy. There are no other thermodynamic effects possible through a vacuum.

3) if a body in a vacuum receives radiant energy, it will rise in temperature until it radiates the same amount of energy away.

Do you agree so far? If not, what is your different understanding for these situations?

you make the same case as konradv. that CO2 makes it more difficult for the surface to shed radiation therefore it must be causing global warming now, and more global warming in the future. I agree with the basic mechanism and so do all of the major skeptics.

so why is there such a heated argument over 'settled science'? because it is only one factor out of many, many factors in the climate system. calculations suggest ~1C per doubling of CO2 if all other factors remain the same. although this calculation is also a model, the parameters are constrained enough to have confidence in the output.

is it the 1C rise from 280-560 ppm that is causing the hysteria? perhaps the second 1C from 560-1120 ppm? no, it is the 3x feedback factor that climate models have built in that are calling for catastrophe. that positive feedback has been found to be wildly exaggerated in the last few years, as could easily be expected because the earth is full of homeostatic negative feedbacks with very few unstable 'tipping point' positive ones.

if you look at Trenberth's energy budget, what do you see? take a good look at the different pathways, both below and above the clouds.

what did you see?

besides the 40W that directly escapes the surface through the 10 micrometer atmospheric window, how much pinballs its way to the top of the clouds? 26W. what takes most of the energy up to the cloudtop and passed the greenhouse effect blockage? thermals and evapotranspiration, 17W +80W.

you are worried about CO2 blocking some of that 26W out, and you have been told that it is increased by water vapour feedbacks. but water vapour and clouds are what is taking most of the energy away! ever wonder why tropical water gets warm but no warmer? thunderstorms pump the heat out. if you increased the solar input, thunderstorms would start earlier and more often. if you decreased the solar input, thunderstorms would start later and less often.

to reiterate- you are right in a narrow sense that CO2 causes warming by restricting the outward flow of some wavelengths of IR radiation from the surface. but you are wrong to think that it is an independent factor that does not interact with other factors, or that it can be separated out and individually be measured. the effect of CO2 is lost in the uncertainty of our understanding of water vapour and clouds. remember high school science and math? the precision of your result is only as good as your least precise measurement!

"is it the 1C rise from 280-560 ppm that is causing the hysteria?"

It's interesting that you call solving a problem potentially costing mankind trillions of dollars and millions of lives "hysteria" rather than measured response.

 

[SSDD]

It has nothing at all to do with black bodies. It applies to all bodies. It applies to all molecules. It applies to all spatial bodies.

Perhaps you should learn the difference between a blackbody and graybodies of varying degrees.

Perhaps you should learn that all bodies in space warm and radiate just enough to maintain energy balance.

My point was that you are going to have to twist the laws of physics if you are working your way up to invoking the Stefan-Boltzman equations. On second thought, maybe you don't even know what they are or how they have been misapplied to the AGW hypothesis.

 

[SSDD]

It's interesting that you call solving a problem potentially costing mankind trillions of dollars and millions of lives "hysteria" rather than measured response.

One degree is a problem for us on a planet that experiences wild temperature swings?
The Miocene, Roman, and Medieval warm periods were at least a degree warmer than the present...what sort of problems does history tell us that temperature increase caused other than to allow mankind to flourish?

 

[SSDD]

What's been provided to you as data, theory, and observation to support AGW is nearly infinitely more evidence than you and others have provided to deny it.

you have provided is nothing...no measured, observed, empirical data whatsoever.

is no science that denies it.

Not only does actual science deny it, reality denies it. The models are the AGW hypothesis incarnate and they are failing miserably because the hypothesis is wrong.

only question is, where are we in response to what we've already dumped into the atmosphere over the last 100 years?

No, the question...which remains unanswered..is where is the hard, measured, observed, empirical evidence that man's CO2 emissions are causing the climate to warm. Where is the human fingerprint in the climate? Lets see the data. After that, lets discuss how much warming due to CO2 and then determine whether it will cause any problem at all or even if it can be recognized within the noise of natural variability.

Typical of all warmists, you are eager to jump past the hard scientific questions right to income redistribution.

 

[PMZ]

Are you working on this chance to embarrass and defeat me??? Please feel free to work with the other 1/10 of your brain PMZ and produce for us both the warming projected SOLELY FROM CO2 and the wild claims made by the IPCC, the model butchers, and all your heroes including Al Gore..

Here's a hint --- Even AL GORE knows that the temp rise due to CO2 alone is not hysterical enough "to play on your FEARS"......

Quit scratching your ass, talk to your sock or clone and do some work...

Let's start with what we apparently agree on.

1) The more greenhouse gas molecules that there are in the atmosphere the more longwave radiation into space is reduced. However there is no effect on the incoming shortwave solar radiation.

2) Any body in a vacuum can only be affected by radiant energy. There are no other thermodynamic effects possible through a vacuum.

3) if a body in a vacuum receives radiant energy, it will rise in temperature until it radiates the same amount of energy away.

Do you agree so far? If not, what is your different understanding for these situations?

you make the same case as konradv. that CO2 makes it more difficult for the surface to shed radiation therefore it must be causing global warming now, and more global warming in the future. I agree with the basic mechanism and so do all of the major skeptics.

so why is there such a heated argument over 'settled science'? because it is only one factor out of many, many factors in the climate system. calculations suggest ~1C per doubling of CO2 if all other factors remain the same. although this calculation is also a model, the parameters are constrained enough to have confidence in the output.

is it the 1C rise from 280-560 ppm that is causing the hysteria? perhaps the second 1C from 560-1120 ppm? no, it is the 3x feedback factor that climate models have built in that are calling for catastrophe. that positive feedback has been found to be wildly exaggerated in the last few years, as could easily be expected because the earth is full of homeostatic negative feedbacks with very few unstable 'tipping point' positive ones.

if you look at Trenberth's energy budget, what do you see? take a good look at the different pathways, both below and above the clouds.

what did you see?

besides the 40W that directly escapes the surface through the 10 micrometer atmospheric window, how much pinballs its way to the top of the clouds? 26W. what takes most of the energy up to the cloudtop and passed the greenhouse effect blockage? thermals and evapotranspiration, 17W +80W.

you are worried about CO2 blocking some of that 26W out, and you have been told that it is increased by water vapour feedbacks. but water vapour and clouds are what is taking most of the energy away! ever wonder why tropical water gets warm but no warmer? thunderstorms pump the heat out. if you increased the solar input, thunderstorms would start earlier and more often. if you decreased the solar input, thunderstorms would start later and less often.

to reiterate- you are right in a narrow sense that CO2 causes warming by restricting the outward flow of some wavelengths of IR radiation from the surface. but you are wrong to think that it is an independent factor that does not interact with other factors, or that it can be separated out and individually be measured. the effect of CO2 is lost in the uncertainty of our understanding of water vapour and clouds. remember high school science and math? the precision of your result is only as good as your least precise measurement!

I believe that you are looking at the picture incorrectly.

Let's try a mind experiment.

Let's assume that the world including the atmosphere is as it is today, with he sun switched off. Let's replace GHG with a half silvered mirror, transparent to shortwave, instead of the GHG absorption and radiation in all diirections that we know is the truth.

Switch on the sun.

The earth will start warming from the impinging solar energy. When will it stop warming? When the temperature of the surface is hot enough to radiate 396 W/M2 and therefore the net energy out = the energy captured from the sun.

Replace the half silvered mirror with one twice as reflective. What happens? The first thing would be that the net energy out would halve, the world would start warming, until it reaches a new temperature that once again restores the energy out balance with incoming energy.

How many years would that take, and what would be the final temperature?

For others to determine.

 

[PMZ]

What's been provided to you as data, theory, and observation to support AGW is nearly infinitely more evidence than you and others have provided to deny it.

you have provided is nothing...no measured, observed, empirical data whatsoever.

is no science that denies it.

Not only does actual science deny it, reality denies it. The models are the AGW hypothesis incarnate and they are failing miserably because the hypothesis is wrong.

only question is, where are we in response to what we've already dumped into the atmosphere over the last 100 years?

No, the question...which remains unanswered..is where is the hard, measured, observed, empirical evidence that man's CO2 emissions are causing the climate to warm. Where is the human fingerprint in the climate? Lets see the data. After that, lets discuss how much warming due to CO2 and then determine whether it will cause any problem at all or even if it can be recognized within the noise of natural variability.

Typical of all warmists, you are eager to jump past the hard scientific questions right to income redistribution.

I see that you are not a businessman or a scientist. If you were a businessman you'd know that all future prospects involve risk. The earth could end tomorrow. The consequences of the certainty of AGW could be twice or half as bad as anyone is predicting.

Smart people play the odds . Conservatives do nothing until the problem is insurmountable. Then ask liberals to bail them out.

 

[PMZ]

Perhaps you should learn the difference between a blackbody and graybodies of varying degrees.

Perhaps you should learn that all bodies in space warm and radiate just enough to maintain energy balance.

My point was that you are going to have to twist the laws of physics if you are working your way up to invoking the Stefan-Boltzman equations. On second thought, maybe you don't even know what they are or how they have been misapplied to the AGW hypothesis.

The Stefan-Boltzmann equation doesn't need me to invoke it. That happens automatically.

 

[westwall]

What's been provided to you as data, theory, and observation to support AGW is nearly infinitely more evidence than you and others have provided to deny it.

you have provided is nothing...no measured, observed, empirical data whatsoever.

is no science that denies it.

Not only does actual science deny it, reality denies it. The models are the AGW hypothesis incarnate and they are failing miserably because the hypothesis is wrong.

only question is, where are we in response to what we've already dumped into the atmosphere over the last 100 years?

No, the question...which remains unanswered..is where is the hard, measured, observed, empirical evidence that man's CO2 emissions are causing the climate to warm. Where is the human fingerprint in the climate? Lets see the data. After that, lets discuss how much warming due to CO2 and then determine whether it will cause any problem at all or even if it can be recognized within the noise of natural variability.

Typical of all warmists, you are eager to jump past the hard scientific questions right to income redistribution.

Seriously, it's a troll.....don't feed it.

 

[PMZ]

It's interesting that you call solving a problem potentially costing mankind trillions of dollars and millions of lives "hysteria" rather than measured response.

One degree is a problem for us on a planet that experiences wild temperature swings?
The Miocene, Roman, and Medieval warm periods were at least a degree warmer than the present...what sort of problems does history tell us that temperature increase caused other than to allow mankind to flourish?

They hadn't arranged their civilization around a previous climate like we have. Plus the whole world population then was nothing compared today.

Too many mouths to feed today. To many farms and cities to relocate.

 

[PMZ]

What's been provided to you as data, theory, and observation to support AGW is nearly infinitely more evidence than you and others have provided to deny it.

you have provided is nothing...no measured, observed, empirical data whatsoever.





Not only does actual science deny it, reality denies it. The models are the AGW hypothesis incarnate and they are failing miserably because the hypothesis is wrong.

only question is, where are we in response to what we've already dumped into the atmosphere over the last 100 years?

No, the question...which remains unanswered..is where is the hard, measured, observed, empirical evidence that man's CO2 emissions are causing the climate to warm. Where is the human fingerprint in the climate? Lets see the data. After that, lets discuss how much warming due to CO2 and then determine whether it will cause any problem at all or even if it can be recognized within the noise of natural variability.

Typical of all warmists, you are eager to jump past the hard scientific questions right to income redistribution.

Seriously, it's a troll.....don't feed it.

Quick, run and hide or the truth is gonna get cha and eat you all up!

Ignorance is hard to defend because you got no facts. Your best option is to slam your mind closed and never, no, never open it again!

 

[SSDD]

I see that you are not a businessman or a scientist. If you were a businessman you'd know that all future prospects involve risk. The earth could end tomorrow. The consequences of the certainty of AGW could be twice or half as bad as anyone is predicting.

I see that you are nothing more than a poser who enjoys pretending intellectual superiority. The problem is that it isn't very convincing when you don't have any actual observed, measured, empirical data to support your claims.

As to the consequences of AGW, to date, neither you, nor anyone in climate science has produced the first bit of actual observed and measured data that proves AGW is anything more than a failing hypothesis. No observation, no measurement, not even any experimental evidence to support the claims...nothing but failing computer models.

If you want to spend money on AGW, you first must prove it exists. Lets see the proof. How much warming is man's CO2 emission responsible for?

Smart people play the odds . Conservatives do nothing until the problem is insurmountable. Then ask liberals to bail them out.

Not a student of history either I see. Liberals are not rightly known as the princes of unintended consequences for nothing.

 

[flacaltenn]

What's been provided to you as data, theory, and observation to support AGW is nearly infinitely more evidence than you and others have provided to deny it.

you have provided is nothing...no measured, observed, empirical data whatsoever.





Not only does actual science deny it, reality denies it. The models are the AGW hypothesis incarnate and they are failing miserably because the hypothesis is wrong.

only question is, where are we in response to what we've already dumped into the atmosphere over the last 100 years?

No, the question...which remains unanswered..is where is the hard, measured, observed, empirical evidence that man's CO2 emissions are causing the climate to warm. Where is the human fingerprint in the climate? Lets see the data. After that, lets discuss how much warming due to CO2 and then determine whether it will cause any problem at all or even if it can be recognized within the noise of natural variability.

Typical of all warmists, you are eager to jump past the hard scientific questions right to income redistribution.

Seriously, it's a troll.....don't feed it.

Captain.. TriCorder readings confirm this is a probe of alien origin.. It seems to have been developed as a primitive form of galactic advertising. Probably pre-cognitive programming..

 

[SSDD]

Quick, run and hide or the truth is gonna get cha and eat you all up!

Ignorance is hard to defend because you got no facts. Your best option is to slam your mind closed and never, no, never open it again!

I am afraid that it is you who is short on facts. I keep asking for facts and you keep giving me opinion. Lets see the hard data that proves that AGW exists....following that, state how much warming is due to man's CO2 emissions.

You keep talking about facts but remain incapable of producing any. The models are based on the AGW hypothesis and they are failing spectacularly. Look at this. It is a graph of the output of 73 climate models compared to the satellite record and actual measurements made with balloons.

All of these models claim to be based on the same set of actual atmospheric physics but look at their output. None of them produce the same result....in fact, they are all over the place and diverged completely from the observed temperature. If I build a model, or 50 models based on the Stefan-Boltzman law, or the ideal gas law and run them, the results could not help but be the same because if any number of models were based on a physical law, by definition, their output would have to be the same and the output, if it were in fact based on the physical law, would match observation very closely. That isn't what is happening with the models...they not only do not match each other even though they claim to be based on physical laws, they do not match observation.

If you are unable to see the uncertainty, flaws, and spectacular failure of the claims made by climate science, then I am afraid it is you who suffers from the closed mind.

 

[SSDD]

Captain.. TriCorder readings confirm this is a probe of alien origin.. It seems to have been developed as a primitive form of galactic advertising. Probably pre-cognitive programming..

Probably brought on by consuming undisclosed, but certainly copius quantities of a certain well known sort of kool aid.

 

[PMZ]

It never ceases to amaze me how tightly ignorance closes minds. I'm pretty sure that we have a nest of pretenders here. Probably not a high school graduate among them. Their collective mantra? If I'm not capable of understanding something, it cannot exist.

Probably all came from ancestors who said, "open your eyes! If the earth was round the people on the bottom would fall right off. Why would stupid people not see the obvious problems with the very idea of a ball shaped earth!"

They believe that if they keep their eyes and ears shut tight to the data and the proof and the logic and the weather for God's sake, they will get their way.

Which is really, that what Rush Limbaugh said 20 years ago was informed. And what Al Gore said 15 years ago was dumb.

They cannot and have not derailed science a bit. They did derail politics some. They are clearly on the sidelines now awaiting extinction as befalls all species who don't accept the truth.

Flush.

 

[SSDD]

It never ceases to amaze me how tightly ignorance closes minds. I'm pretty sure that we have a nest of pretenders here. Probably not a high school graduate among them. Their collective mantra? If I'm not capable of understanding something, it cannot exist.

Like I said, pretending intellectual superiority doesn't play very well if you don't have any actual proof to back up your claims. I keep asking for hard observed measured data and you keep not delivering.

Probably all came from ancestors who said, "open your eyes! If the earth was round the people on the bottom would fall right off. Why would stupid people not see the obvious problems with the very idea of a ball shaped earth!"

You don't see a problem with being asked for hard observed measured data to prove your postion and not being able to provide any at all? You are describing yourself. You believe but hold your belief based on nothing more than smoke and mirrors and apparently aren't intelligent enough to see that the fact that you can't provide actual observed data to support your claims calls your claims into question.

They believe that if they keep their eyes and ears shut tight to the data and the proof and the logic and the weather for God's sake, they will get their way.

You haven't provided any actual data, or proof to support your claims. If you did and I missed it, then repost it or point me to the post where you provided it.

They cannot and have not derailed science a bit. They did derail politics some. They are clearly on the sidelines now awaiting extinction as befalls all species who don't accept the truth.

Rambling and talking to yourself just looks stupid. Post the actual proof of AGW. Hell, you won't even say how much warming you believe is due to man's CO2 emissions. When you are asked the hard questions, rather than providing answers, or at least hard observed data to support your claims, you pretend intellectual superiority. That may work when you are talking to your fellow junior high students, but we are adults here and expect to see evidence to support your claims. You have provided none.

 

[PMZ]

Are you in any way informed about physics? Are you capable of, and did you follow my posts today?

Prove that even one of the concepts that I posted was wrong using actual observed data.

 

[westwall]

you have provided is nothing...no measured, observed, empirical data whatsoever.





Not only does actual science deny it, reality denies it. The models are the AGW hypothesis incarnate and they are failing miserably because the hypothesis is wrong.



No, the question...which remains unanswered..is where is the hard, measured, observed, empirical evidence that man's CO2 emissions are causing the climate to warm. Where is the human fingerprint in the climate? Lets see the data. After that, lets discuss how much warming due to CO2 and then determine whether it will cause any problem at all or even if it can be recognized within the noise of natural variability.

Typical of all warmists, you are eager to jump past the hard scientific questions right to income redistribution.

Seriously, it's a troll.....don't feed it.

Captain.. TriCorder readings confirm this is a probe of alien origin.. It seems to have been developed as a primitive form of galactic advertising. Probably pre-cognitive programming..

Almost fell out of my chair! Reps are OWED!

 

[SSDD]

Are you in any way informed about physics? Are you capable of, and did you follow my posts today?

Prove that even one of the concepts that I posted was wrong using actual observed data.

Yes, I am informed about physics...yes I saw your posts. You didn't offer up the slightest proof of anything. You made claims and nothing more and I never saw any instance of you completing a thought based on a principle of physics.

What do you think you posted that was based on actual observed data?