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

[SSDD]

I have never reads more apt moniker than yours.

SSDD.

It describes what I hear from warmists. You folks universally
fail to provide any proof at all to substantiate your claims.

It describes every post of yours that I've read.

OK. I am going to ask one more time for you to post what you believe to be proof of AGW. If you can, then do it and the conversation can continue. If you can't, then I must assume that westwall is correct and you are no more than a mindless troll and your conversation with me is finished. You may continue your mental masturbation if you wish.

 

[PMZ]

I'm still awaiting the first iota of evidence. Some little scrap or tidbit. Something?

You want me to prove a negative? You really are lost here. The weight of proof lies on your shoulders. You are the one making claims of AGW and the terrors of AGW. Therefore the responsibility of proving AGW rests on you. I have asked for proof and you have not provided it therefore you have lost the debate. It's that simple.

The question is not my proof but your ability to understand it. You've proven yourself, beyond the shadow of a doubt, simply incapable, and you'd like to make that my problem. It is simply not. It's your problem exclusively.

 

[SSDD]

Seriously SSDD, this is a troll. It can't be reasoned with. It can't be taught anything. It can't do anything but waste your time with circular arguments designed to waste your time for its amusment.

Just stop feeding it and it will eventually whither and die.

Guess you are right. Life's to short to talk to trolls. Maybe some day he will grow up enough to actually engage the conversation and discuss the topic rather than claim that his opponent couldn't understand what he had to say if he did.

No one can say I didn't at least try to talk to him.

 

[PMZ]

It describes what I hear from warmists. You folks universally
fail to provide any proof at all to substantiate your claims.

It describes every post of yours that I've read.

OK. I am going to ask one more time for you to post what you believe to be proof of AGW. If you can, then do it and the conversation can continue. If you can't, then I must assume that westwall is correct and you are no more than a mindless troll and your conversation with me is finished. You may continue your mental masturbation if you wish.

Understanding physics requires education which you've demonstrated that you don't have. You need to move on to topics that you are equipped to understand. Nobody tries to explain the complexity of multi variate analysis to fifth graders. There is good reason for that. They, like you, need to learn many things as background before they can understand that step, which would ultimately open their world to many more things based on that topic.

Your education simply is what it is. It has nothing to do with mine or my ego or my explanation or my science. It has to do simply with you.

Accept some personal responsibility.

 

[PMZ]

Seriously SSDD, this is a troll. It can't be reasoned with. It can't be taught anything. It can't do anything but waste your time with circular arguments designed to waste your time for its amusment.

Just stop feeding it and it will eventually whither and die.

Guess you are right. Life's to short to talk to trolls. Maybe some day he will grow up enough to actually engage the conversation and discuss the topic rather than claim that his opponent couldn't understand what he had to say if he did.

No one can say I didn't at least try to talk to him.

What you didn't try to do is to listen to me. Why? You don't have the tools to understand.

It's as simple as that.

 

[PMZ]

What do you think? Do you have any theory or evidence that anything that I posted today is not right on?

Again, you haven't posted anything that means anything. You have posted some incomplete thoughts that suggest that you may have read some warmist literature but didn't understand it well enough to actually discuss the topic.

The one actual statement you made that AGW was fact has yet to be proven so in that, you were wrong...unless you care to provide proof that AGW exists.

"Again, you haven't posted anything that means anything"

I agree that I haven't posted anything that means anything to you. But, that's not my problem. It is 100% yours.

 

[PMZ]

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.

A warmer climate is better for food production. When the Roman warm period ended around 500 AD, there was massive famine all over the world.

Yup. Some areas might have to switch to crops more suitable for a somewhat warmer environment and Canada and Siberia could become breadbaskets for the world. But nobody ever seems to want to focus on the potential positives.

It's about water, not temperature.

 

[PMZ]

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.

Another way to look at things that leads to the same conclusion. After replacing the mirror with one twice as reflective.....the back radiation would double, heating the earth until the 396 W/M2 gets sufficiently more to re-establish energy balance at TOA.

Either way to look at it, there is no possibility that AGW can be avoided. It's only a matter of how long it will take the re-establish equilibrium, and exactly what the global average temperature has to rise to compensate for any specific atmospheric GHG concentration.

 

[gslack]

I think the reputation with both PMZ and the obvious ifitzme socks going down so drastically warrants an explanation. I have asked both socks what happened and they refuse to answer and I have gotten neg-repped from saigon for asking them...

I for one think it's time we stop tolerating this obvious troll's tactics, as well as his clones...

So socko, what happened to your rep? LOL, got caught socking didn't ya...

 

[PMZ]

I think the reputation with both PMZ and the obvious ifitzme socks going down so drastically warrants an explanation. I have asked both socks what happened and they refuse to answer and I have gotten neg-repped from saigon for asking them...

I for one think it's time we stop tolerating this obvious troll's tactics, as well as his clones...

So socko, what happened to your rep? LOL, got caught socking didn't ya...

You, aparently, are highly allergic to learning, a common condition that, unfortunately, always leads to life long ignorance.

You have no place here in a discussion about the science behind AGW. It is completely, and irrevocably, outside your grasp, and, as learning is no longer possible for you, it will ever be.

I'm sure that you can find other topics within your grasp. I hope that you do.

 

[mamooth]

Gslack, when are you bringing back your IamBorg sock? You know, that account that so quickly disappeared. Want to tell us about that?

Go on, folks, go search on the name. Wonder why that account isn't there any longer. Maybe gslack will fill us in. Maybe not though, given how he's so touchy about the topic.

Why do I bring this up? Because I enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of a sock abuser calling others socks.

 

[PMZ]

Gslack, when are you bringing back your IamBorg sock? You know, that account that so quickly disappeared. Want to tell us about that?

Go on, folks, go search on the name. Wonder why that account isn't there any longer. Maybe gslack will fill us in. Maybe not though, given how he's so touchy about the topic.

Why do I bring this up? Because I enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of a sock abuser calling others socks.

What is a sock? It seems to be the slacker's favorite word.

 

[westwall]

I think the reputation with both PMZ and the obvious ifitzme socks going down so drastically warrants an explanation. I have asked both socks what happened and they refuse to answer and I have gotten neg-repped from saigon for asking them...

I for one think it's time we stop tolerating this obvious troll's tactics, as well as his clones...

So socko, what happened to your rep? LOL, got caught socking didn't ya...

 

[Saigon]

I think the reputation with both PMZ and the obvious ifitzme socks going down so drastically warrants an explanation. I have asked both socks what happened and they refuse to answer and I have gotten neg-repped from saigon for asking them...

I for one think it's time we stop tolerating this obvious troll's tactics, as well as his clones...

So socko, what happened to your rep? LOL, got caught socking didn't ya...

And as I have suggested to you several times - report any socks to the moderators and let's have them banned once and for all. I will support you in that. It shouldn't be hard for the Mods to determine which IP we all post from.

However, anytime you accuse me of being a sock, you will be neg-repped.

 

[Saigon]

Gslack, when are you bringing back your IamBorg sock? You know, that account that so quickly disappeared. Want to tell us about that?

Go on, folks, go search on the name. Wonder why that account isn't there any longer. Maybe gslack will fill us in. Maybe not though, given how he's so touchy about the topic.

Why do I bring this up? Because I enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of a sock abuser calling others socks.

What is a sock? It seems to be the slacker's favorite word.

A sock is a fake poster, as in a 'sock puppet'. In theory, a poster could have 3 different names and log in and start agreeing with himself.

I doubt we have any here myself, and I notice glskack refuses to take any complaints he may have to the moderators.

I think it's fairly clear to everyone that Gslack only uses the whole sock thing to avoid discussing science, which frankly I am losing patience with.

Is it time we asked the Mods to clean up this section of the board and throw out the trolls, spammers and time wasters?

 

[IanC]

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.

there are a few things that you seem to be confused about. solar input is the stable component of the temperature equilibrium, therefore the surface can be a wide range of temperatures depending on the conditions for heat loss. this is an important point! without GHGs to constrain IR radiation from directly escaping to space the surface would be ~minus 18C. the 496W/m2 from the surface is a combination of solar input and charged heat sinks of the ground and atmosphere. it can have many other values but the net output from the earth must equal the net input from the sun ( to a close degree, the conditions are always changing).

you are also confused about CO2 somehow being equivilent to a half-silvered mirror for IR radiation. it is not. the extinction length for CO2 reactive bands of IR is roughly 10 metres. got that? the IR is totally dispersed in random directions in 33 feet, it cannot become any less ordered. if a CO2 molecule has absorbed a suitable IR photon and is vibrating (quantum vibration, not ordinary vibration), then collides with another molecule, that IR quantum becomes part of the overall energy equation and can be emitted as blackbody radiation. if the CO2 molecule simply emits the same type of photon its direction has been randomized. because we dont care about the lateral component, only the vertical component, we say that half goes up and half goes down on avg. there is no 'reflection', only total dispersion, happening constantly.

while I admire your confidence in your ability to think things through, so do a lot of us here on the message board. I think you need to delve a little deeper because your posts have been very simplistic and in many cases have significant errors in them.

 

[gslack]

I think the reputation with both PMZ and the obvious ifitzme socks going down so drastically warrants an explanation. I have asked both socks what happened and they refuse to answer and I have gotten neg-repped from saigon for asking them...

I for one think it's time we stop tolerating this obvious troll's tactics, as well as his clones...

So socko, what happened to your rep? LOL, got caught socking didn't ya...

You, aparently, are highly allergic to learning, a common condition that, unfortunately, always leads to life long ignorance.

You have no place here in a discussion about the science behind AGW. It is completely, and irrevocably, outside your grasp, and, as learning is no longer possible for you, it will ever be.

I'm sure that you can find other topics within your grasp. I hope that you do.

I'm sorry socko who got penalized for it and now has drastically lowered rep, but you do not get to decide who can post where..

Ya got busted socking and now your reps is gone, we can see that. Either that or some other violation.

fact us you have been rambling half-baked nonsense in here from the start. You have yet to defend a position you take coherently. So spare me the "who can grasp what" nonsense .. ROFL. and we see the sock brigade chiming right on time..

Did I call that or what? LOL, I must be psychic too..ROFL

 

[gslack]

I think the reputation with both PMZ and the obvious ifitzme socks going down so drastically warrants an explanation. I have asked both socks what happened and they refuse to answer and I have gotten neg-repped from saigon for asking them...

I for one think it's time we stop tolerating this obvious troll's tactics, as well as his clones...

So socko, what happened to your rep? LOL, got caught socking didn't ya...

And as I have suggested to you several times - report any socks to the moderators and let's have them banned once and for all. I will support you in that. It shouldn't be hard for the Mods to determine which IP we all post from.

However, anytime you accuse me of being a sock, you will be neg-repped.

And as I told you plenty of times, YOU aren't in charge here junior. Get it yet? All of your neg-repping and crying to mods about people and incessant whining to me, means squat. If you telling me what to do was going to work, it would have by now, but it hasn't. So you can either ignore me like you claim you do, or stop whining to me,or keep on see how far it gets ya..

 

[gslack]

Gslack, when are you bringing back your IamBorg sock? You know, that account that so quickly disappeared. Want to tell us about that?

Go on, folks, go search on the name. Wonder why that account isn't there any longer. Maybe gslack will fill us in. Maybe not though, given how he's so touchy about the topic.

Why do I bring this up? Because I enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy of a sock abuser calling others socks.

What is a sock? It seems to be the slacker's favorite word.

A sock is a fake poster, as in a 'sock puppet'. In theory, a poster could have 3 different names and log in and start agreeing with himself.

I doubt we have any here myself, and I notice glskack refuses to take any complaints he may have to the moderators.

I think it's fairly clear to everyone that Gslack only uses the whole sock thing to avoid discussing science, which frankly I am losing patience with.

Is it time we asked the Mods to clean up this section of the board and throw out the trolls, spammers and time wasters?

yes, yes explain it to little brother, after all he's some kind of scientist here,he couldn't possibly understand the concept without your explanation... ROFL,a scientist who can't google a term or understand it from all the posts about it here in this thread which has been apart of????

Right, and I'm a journalist from Finland with a united states IP address too, just like you are...ROFL

 

[IanC]

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.

this would be a good time for people to think about what 'temperature' and 'heat' are. heat is kinetic energy available to transfer to other particles. temperature of a gas is a measurement of that kinetic energy, either directly by pressure or indirectly by characteristic radiation given off by collisions of a certain velocity. liquids and solids similarly can be meaured by the conduction or radiation of a surface.

this should not be confused with the preferential absorption and emission properties of different types of particles.


as an interesting aside (to me at least), has anyone seen any literature on the web that describes the proportions of radiation/kinetic energy transfer in conduction?