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

[IanC]

The absorption of energy puts the molecule at a higher energy state. What happens after that depends on the environment the molecule finds itself in. In a typical atmospheric environment, the energy does get re-emitted in all directions, half of it down. That's why the earth has to go to an elevated temperature to rebalance incoming solar energy. No matter how hard you try to sell the opposite, energy is conserved.

What does the Second Law of Thermodynamics say about energy moving from a higher entropy state (the atmosphere) to a lower entropy state (the surface of the earth)?

If you don't understand that question then what does the Second Law of Thermodynamics say about energy moving from a low temperature area (the atmosphere) to a higher temperature area (the surface of the earth)?

I don't know Professor Woods, but he doesn't sound any smarter than you do.

Of course you don't. They don't give out such information over at skeptical science. Wouldn't want to be tempting the faithful.

Molecules separated by space, as in a gas, don't know their neighbors so they radiate energy depending on their energy level as measured by the absolute temperature. Where that energy goes after it has left, the molecule has no say in.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics deals in net heat flow.

You've potentially learned a lot today. We'll see how much of it is still there tomorrow.

there is basically zero chance of teaching SSDD anything about the SLoT. he has his Slayer talking points and refuses to discuss anything else. he wont talk about whether the earth/atmosphere is an open or closed system. he wont talk about whether the atomic scale has different rules than the macroscopic scale (actually that is wrong, he believes in Maxwell's Daemon forbidding certain interactions). just try to get an answer out of him to the question of whether or not objects still radiate energy if they are the same temperature as their surroundings. to SSDD photons are just a theory with no evidence, or some such thing.

I wish SSDD wasnt nominally on the skeptics side because he is an embarrassment when he talks about the science, Slayer science.

 

[IanC]

LOL, what's stupid is worshiping a half-ass "scientist" like you do. Spencer the scientist you worship, wastes so much effort trying to defend something that is as scientifically unsound as believing in the tooth fairy, I don't see how he is respected at all any more..

He wants to peddle his own books and his website, and his career has been made on GH theory, so he plays the safe route and condemns the extreme claims yet defends the pseudo-science behind it. He's an opportunistic save-ass..

Whenever you are tested on the theory, you run away or play dumb in that childish way we have all come to know too well on here. The "what do you mean" act, or the sarcastic asshole shtick.. You're a coward on it Ian, and that's been shown time and again. You are literally one-step away from being a warmer. Why not just take the plunge and get it over with? You spend more time defending the warmer position anyway..

Why bother? You are a warmer.. You just lack the balls to say so and come out with it. You don't want to risk anything, can't afford to be wrong so you take the middle ground... Where the cowards live...

Man up Ian, quit pussy-footing around and pick a damn side already.

thanks for proving my point in #1780

it really is a shame that concern about the earth and 'climate' has devolved into a political struggle with both sides taking stance of "you're either with me, or against me". unfortunately that type of position makes it easy to dismiss valid points from both sides before they are even examined.

I already did 'man up'. I choose the truth, to the best I can determine it by the available evidence, not by affiliation to any group or mindset.

Feynman is the only scientist that I 'worship'. Spencer has been handing the Slayers their asses for years. equilibrium temperature is a function of (input) minus (output). change either side and you change the temp, it's as simple as that.

unfortunately there are too many boneheads like you around that shit the bed for the real skeptics. CO2 affects the radiative properties of the atmosphere. to paraphrase Lindzen, "trivially true but highly exaggerated". most, but not all, of the IR radiation choked off by the extra CO2 in the lower atmosphere finds other pathways to escape. some goes into raising surface temperature, otherwise that energy would already have been taking alternate paths, equilibriums change flow rates and not necessarily in a linear fashion.

deniers like you are not as dangerous as the exaggerators who want to wreck the world economy by making foolish and expensive decisions that have no hope of working, but you certainly make the honest skeptic's job harder by being such an easy target for scorn. that is why I spend as much time criticizing idiot extremists on your fringe as the idiot extremists on the warmer fringe. real skeptics point out the weakness in CO2 theory, they dont concoct their own bizarre theories that taint the believability and reputation of others on their side.

No Ian you have never manned-up. You fear being wrong. Like spencer and any number of other "scientists" who would rather spread a scientific mystery as explained fact, rather than appear lacking or unknowing.

The truth is they don't really know what happens at the sub-atomic and atomic levels. They are guessing based on what they can figure out using theoretical mathematics. That's it. They think that some of the energy must flow back to it's source because mathematically it shows it must. They can't prove it, they can't observe the phenomenon well enough to be sure, all they know is according to their current level of understanding and math, it's should be correct.

The theory has not been quantified, yet these idiots push it has fact anyway because their careers depend on it.

If you accept that EM radiation shows properties of BOTH a wave and a particle, the theory falls flat. A wave as shown in many experiments, cannot flow back to it's greater source. It can interfere with it, but cannot fully oppose or flow back against it. A particle on the other hand allows for some lee way in that. And when you add in frequency variance, or phases, you can even make the argument for very limited two-way energy flow. BUT you have to negate the wave-like properties to make the case.

Even the argument the sock brigade made about "net heat" flow, will not change the issue. Whether you call it "net heat flow" and assume some flows back to it's source, or not the greater heat is still going out, meaning at best the net heat is diffused and not warming the source.

We have been over this time and again, and every time you have to come to the point that you cannot logically argue the theory well enough, so you play dumb and become a sarcastic ass or run away.. Why do you think that is? Why is it when you take the argument as far as you can, you always end up at the same stalemates?

Simple, your theory has holes in it and it's incomplete at best, if not completely false.. Too many unknowns, too many unproven and unverified processes, to even consider it a fact yet..

yes, we have been over it a hundred times. equilibrium temperature is based on input (mostly from the sun, temperature invariant) minus output (radiation, convection, latent, which are all temperature dependent). choking off the output warms the surface, not by the energy returning from the atmosphere, but by the radiation that fails to escape in a timely fashion. the same stable input from the sun can result in a wide range of surface temperatures depending on the conditions that affect the output of energy into space. it is a simple concept but totally beyond your ken.

 

[SSDD]

Roy's model failed just like all the rest. It is truely sad to watch you attempt to defend that which has spectacularly and undeniably failed.

The more you talk, the more evident it becomes that you don't know squat.

Then why are you posting bs models from Dr Roy's website?

Home Page.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

That is from Dr. Roy's website... It's his graph, selected balloon and selected satellite data, from Dr, Roy.

You can just keep on pretending all you want.

Are you really this stupid? Here is some more peer reviewed material pointing out the dismal failure of the climate models. I have provided you plenty of peer reviewed papers explicitly stating that climate models are failing spectacularly and you continue to whine and claim that they are accurate. How slow must you be?

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New article in Nature laments the dismal failure of climate models

An article published today in Nature laments the dismal failure of climate models to predict climate a mere 5 years into the future, much less a century from now:

•"The dramatic warming predicted after 2008 has yet to arrive."
•"It's fair to say that the real world warmed even less than our forecast suggested,” [modeller] Smith says. “We don't really understand at the moment why that is.” “
•"Although I have nothing against this endeavour as a research opportunity, the papers so far have mostly served as a 'disproof of concept',” says Gavin Schmidt. Schmidt says that these efforts are “a little misguided”. He argues that it is difficult to attribute success or failure to any particular parameter because the inherent unpredictability of weather and climate is built into both the Earth system and the models. “It doesn't suggest any solutions,” he says.
•"Because the climate does not usually change drastically from one year to the next, the model is bound to start off predicting conditions that are close to reality. But that effect quickly wears off as the real climate evolves. If this is the source of the models' accuracy, that advantage fades quickly after a few years."
•"Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, says that it could be a decade or more before this research really begins to pay off in terms of predictive power, and even then climate scientists will be limited in what they can say about the future."
•Once again, modellers attempt to explain away their failures due to the dubious excuse of Trenberth's "missing heat" sinking undetected to the bottom of the ocean.

 

[SSDD]

How much, exactly, in ppm. *A number, numbnuts. *And detail the mechanism by which it got there. *Not some vague pussified bs that you always spout because you're to chicken to be specific.

Which part of "ANY" is it that you don't understand? *You seem to have a perpetual problem with the meanings of words. *Here, have a definition....on the house.

any - adj. - in whatever quantity or number, great or small

Just want to be clear. *So 300ppm or 400ppm would be to much than...

You might want to review

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wYLmLW4k4aI]CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1 - YouTube[/ame]

because, according to you, it's just a little bit.

You suck so badly at this that it has stopped being funny. You want to compare MTBE to CO2 now. Once more, volumes of hard, repeatable, observed, data support the danger of MTBE to human beings in ANY quantity. Lets see one piece of hard, repeatable observed data that supports the same claim of mankinds miniscule contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere.

 

[SSDD]

You are still having difficulty with that absorbed/re-emitted and reflected/transmitted thing. This is why you can't be a Wikipedia scientist.

Sorry, but it is you who is having problems. CO2 immediately emits the IR it absorbs. It does not have the capacity to hold on to even the smallest amount of IR. Feel free to keep trying. Like I said, very intertaining.

By the way, your idiot experiment is done in a closed system. You will see a temperature rise in your container, but it is due to a phenomenon known as the heat of compression...look it up.

If you put an outlet valve on top of your container so that the pressure within doesn't increase as you add IR, you will not see a temperature rise.

You are laughably inept on the ideal gas law. Try Wikipedia.

Again try and learn something. Once again, the topic is heat of compression. Must I post a link for you?

 

[IanC]

Roy's model failed just like all the rest. It is truely sad to watch you attempt to defend that which has spectacularly and undeniably failed.

The more you talk, the more evident it becomes that you don't know squat.

Then why are you posting bs models from Dr Roy's website?

Home Page.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

That is from Dr. Roy's website... It's his graph, selected balloon and selected satellite data, from Dr, Roy.

You can just keep on pretending all you want.

Are you really this stupid? Here is some more peer reviewed material pointing out the dismal failure of the climate models. I have provided you plenty of peer reviewed papers explicitly stating that climate models are failing spectacularly and you continue to whine and claim that they are accurate. How slow must you be?

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New article in Nature laments the dismal failure of climate models

An article published today in Nature laments the dismal failure of climate models to predict climate a mere 5 years into the future, much less a century from now:

•"The dramatic warming predicted after 2008 has yet to arrive."
•"It's fair to say that the real world warmed even less than our forecast suggested,” [modeller] Smith says. “We don't really understand at the moment why that is.” “
•"Although I have nothing against this endeavour as a research opportunity, the papers so far have mostly served as a 'disproof of concept',” says Gavin Schmidt. Schmidt says that these efforts are “a little misguided”. He argues that it is difficult to attribute success or failure to any particular parameter because the inherent unpredictability of weather and climate is built into both the Earth system and the models. “It doesn't suggest any solutions,” he says.
•"Because the climate does not usually change drastically from one year to the next, the model is bound to start off predicting conditions that are close to reality. But that effect quickly wears off as the real climate evolves. If this is the source of the models' accuracy, that advantage fades quickly after a few years."
•"Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, says that it could be a decade or more before this research really begins to pay off in terms of predictive power, and even then climate scientists will be limited in what they can say about the future."
•Once again, modellers attempt to explain away their failures due to the dubious excuse of Trenberth's "missing heat" sinking undetected to the bottom of the ocean.

yup, climate models show little skill at predicting the future.

an interesting paper is being discuss over at J Curry's blog-

Abstract. During a development stage global climate models have their properties adjusted or tuned in various ways to best match the known state of the Earth’s climate system. These desired properties are observables, such as the radiation balance at the top of the atmosphere, the global mean temperature, sea ice, clouds and wind fields. The tuning is typically performed by adjusting uncertain, or even non-observable, parameters related to processes not explicitly represented at the model grid resolution. The practice of climate model tuning has seen an increasing level of attention because key model properties, such as climate sensitivity, have been shown to depend on frequently used tuning parameters. Here we provide insights into how climate model tuning is practically done in the case of closing the radiation balance and adjusting the global mean temperature for the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model (MPIESM). We demonstrate that considerable ambiguity exists in the choice of parameters, and present and compare three alternatively tuned, yet plausible configurations of the climate model. The impacts of parameter tuning on climate sensitivity was less than anticipated.

Climate model tuning | Climate Etc.

 

[IanC]

Sorry, but it is you who is having problems. CO2 immediately emits the IR it absorbs. It does not have the capacity to hold on to even the smallest amount of IR. Feel free to keep trying. Like I said, very intertaining.

By the way, your idiot experiment is done in a closed system. You will see a temperature rise in your container, but it is due to a phenomenon known as the heat of compression...look it up.

If you put an outlet valve on top of your container so that the pressure within doesn't increase as you add IR, you will not see a temperature rise.

You are laughably inept on the ideal gas law. Try Wikipedia.

Again try and learn something. Once again, the topic is heat of compression. Must I post a link for you?

an interesting perspective, especially if you turn it about. how much does the atmosphere 'puff out' during the day as it absorbs heat from the sun, only to lose it during the night. the virial theorum that describes how kinetic and potential energy are adjusted to have maximum efficiency is an underutilized resource in atmospheric climatology.

 

[SSDD]

Molecules separated by space, as in a gas, don't know their neighbors so they radiate energy depending on their energy level as measured by the absolute temperature. Where that energy goes after it has left, the molecule has no say in.

I asked you a simple question and you apparently find yourself unable to answer. When someone asks you what the Second Law has to say on the topic of energy moving from one region to another region, the correct response is to state what the second law has to say regarding the movement of energy from one region to another region. Here, let me help you out....this from the highly respected University of Georgia Physics Department:

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Now, let me ask you an even easier question that doesn't involve you having to actually look up complicated stuff like physical laws.

What do you think phrases like "not possible" and "will not" mean? If you need help, with such complex phrases just let me know and I will help you out.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics deals in net heat flow.

So you (and a lot of other warmers) say but I have looked and can't find a single credible reference that says that the second law doesn't mean exactly what it says. It is written in absolute terms...not possible...will not.

The second law is all about entropy and it states explicitly that energy won't move from a state of higher entropy to a state of lower entropy. Energy in the atmosphere is at a higher state of entropy than energy in the surface of the earth. Now once again, what does the second law say about the movement of energy from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state?

If you like, by all means provide a single repeatable laboratory experiment that demonstrates a two way energy flow in definance of the statement of the Second Law.

And this statement by you is pure sophistry:

Molecules separated by space, as in a gas, don't know their neighbors so they radiate energy depending on their energy level as measured by the absolute temperature. Where that energy goes after it has left, the molecule has no say in.

What does knowing have to do with anything? Do you think a stone dropped from your hand needs to know which way to move or do the forces of nature simply dictate to it which way it will move and the stone itself is only along for the ride?

Do you think a marble placed on an incline needs to know which way to move when it is released, or do you think the forces of nature simply don't give it any choice in which way to move?

How about water in a stream bed? Do you think it needs to know which way is downhill?

How about electricity moving down a line? Do you think those electrons need to know which direction is a higher entropy state or do you think that the forces of nature simply move them along whether the "know" any thing or not?

You've potentially learned a lot today. We'll see how much of it is still there tomorrow.

You really are a laugh. I have asked you simple questions that you can't answer and you claim that there is something that I can learn? I have learned that you are an idiot...I have learned that you are incapable of having a rational conversation on the topic because you don't have the slightest grasp of the topic. You will not discuss the topic because it is so far over your head that you don't even know where, or how to begin. You will pick random phrases that you have read and attempt to fit them into a conversation and end up looking even more foolish than you already do.

 

[SSDD]

there is basically zero chance of teaching SSDD anything about the SLoT. he has his Slayer talking points and refuses to discuss anything else. he wont talk about whether the earth/atmosphere is an open or closed system. he wont talk about whether the atomic scale has different rules than the macroscopic scale (actually that is wrong, he believes in Maxwell's Daemon forbidding certain interactions). just try to get an answer out of him to the question of whether or not objects still radiate energy if they are the same temperature as their surroundings. to SSDD photons are just a theory with no evidence, or some such thing.

Why tell that lie Ian? Are you reall not above such dishonesty? I don't have any slayer statements? I simply have the second law itself. What does it say? Is there a credible reference that makes the statement of the second law in terms of net flow? Is there a single repeatable experiment that demonstrates net energy flow? Or does every possible experiment only prove that energy only moves from a low energy state to a higher energy state?

And the earth is an open system. When have I ever said otherwise or refused to discuss the topic? You apparently only seem to think that the laws of nature operate in certain systems but we both know that isn't true.

It isn't difficult to find materials that discuss the second law in open systems as well as closed systems.

What is difficult, in fact, impossible, is to find any actual evidence to support your belief in two way energy flow. Net flow is a matter of faith, not actual evidence.

I wish SSDD wasnt nominally on the skeptics side because he is an embarrassment when he talks about the science, Slayer science.

When have I ever talked about slayer science? I recently suggested you visit Johnson's site to review some of the very fundamental problems with QM although I doubt that you did and when you asked for a more realistic energy budget than trenberth's I pointed you toward Postma's and asked why you objected to it. You claimed that he didn't provide any nubers but of course he did and you simply drifted away rather than actually say why you prefer trenberth's cartoon to postma's realistic model. We both know why but lets not say it in public.

As far as my position on an atmospheric thermal effect, that comes from N&Z who to the best of my knowledge, aren't slayers and even if they were, their model still predicts the temperatures of every known planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while trenberth's can't even accurately predict the temperature here without an ad hoc greenhouse effect.

There is no reason to be a liar Ian, so why do it?

 

[SSDD]

yup, climate models show little skill at predicting the future.

an interesting paper is being discuss over at J Curry's blog-

Abstract. During a development stage global climate models have their properties adjusted or tuned in various ways to best match the known state of the Earth’s climate system. These desired properties are observables, such as the radiation balance at the top of the atmosphere, the global mean temperature, sea ice, clouds and wind fields. The tuning is typically performed by adjusting uncertain, or even non-observable, parameters related to processes not explicitly represented at the model grid resolution. The practice of climate model tuning has seen an increasing level of attention because key model properties, such as climate sensitivity, have been shown to depend on frequently used tuning parameters. Here we provide insights into how climate model tuning is practically done in the case of closing the radiation balance and adjusting the global mean temperature for the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model (MPIESM). We demonstrate that considerable ambiguity exists in the choice of parameters, and present and compare three alternatively tuned, yet plausible configurations of the climate model. The impacts of parameter tuning on climate sensitivity was less than anticipated.

Climate model tuning | Climate Etc.

I have been following that one over at her site. To much truth for folks like ifitzme, pmz, rocks and thunder. A fundamental truth there Ian, is that the models are wrong because the physics upon which they are based are wrong.

 

[SSDD]

an interesting perspective, especially if you turn it about. how much does the atmosphere 'puff out' during the day as it absorbs heat from the sun, only to lose it during the night. the virial theorum that describes how kinetic and potential energy are adjusted to have maximum efficiency is an underutilized resource in atmospheric climatology.

Not among those who have gone on past the unfalsifiable, and failed greenhouse hypothesis. There are actual lab experiments being done that solidly support the work of N&Z and the topic is there, in some depth.

 

[IanC]

there is basically zero chance of teaching SSDD anything about the SLoT. he has his Slayer talking points and refuses to discuss anything else. he wont talk about whether the earth/atmosphere is an open or closed system. he wont talk about whether the atomic scale has different rules than the macroscopic scale (actually that is wrong, he believes in Maxwell's Daemon forbidding certain interactions). just try to get an answer out of him to the question of whether or not objects still radiate energy if they are the same temperature as their surroundings. to SSDD photons are just a theory with no evidence, or some such thing.

Why tell that lie Ian? Are you reall not above such dishonesty? I don't have any slayer statements? I simply have the second law itself. What does it say? Is there a credible reference that makes the statement of the second law in terms of net flow? Is there a single repeatable experiment that demonstrates net energy flow? Or does every possible experiment only prove that energy only moves from a low energy state to a higher energy state?

And the earth is an open system. When have I ever said otherwise or refused to discuss the topic? You apparently only seem to think that the laws of nature operate in certain systems but we both know that isn't true.

It isn't difficult to find materials that discuss the second law in open systems as well as closed systems.

What is difficult, in fact, impossible, is to find any actual evidence to support your belief in two way energy flow. Net flow is a matter of faith, not actual evidence.

I wish SSDD wasnt nominally on the skeptics side because he is an embarrassment when he talks about the science, Slayer science.

When have I ever talked about slayer science? I recently suggested you visit Johnson's site to review some of the very fundamental problems with QM although I doubt that you did and when you asked for a more realistic energy budget than trenberth's I pointed you toward Postma's and asked why you objected to it. You claimed that he didn't provide any nubers but of course he did and you simply drifted away rather than actually say why you prefer trenberth's cartoon to postma's realistic model. We both know why but lets not say it in public.

As far as my position on an atmospheric thermal effect, that comes from N&Z who to the best of my knowledge, aren't slayers and even if they were, their model still predicts the temperatures of every known planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while trenberth's can't even accurately predict the temperature here without an ad hoc greenhouse effect.

There is no reason to be a liar Ian, so why do it?

the laws of thermodynamics were formulated before we had an understanding of what was going on at the atomic level. they are perfectly correct for systems of large numbers of particles because the laws are statistical in nature. for a single particle they have no meaning. a single particle has no 'temperature'. you also confuse the packets of energy emitted as photons with the properties of particles of mass. photons, once emitted, exist until they interact with a bit of matter, they dont cancel out, they dont have a problem being in the same space as another photon. marbles down inclines, water down river banks, electrons through wires, etc are particles of matter which cannot exist in the same piece of space with other particles. the impact of this difference in properties between photons and mass is that there is two way flow of photons but not two way flow of matter. two objects of the same temp are continuously radiating at each other and absorbing the other's radiation so that there is no net exchange of energy.

there are other pieces to the thermodynamic laws, such as entropy, but until you come to grips with the basic properties of radiation there is no point in adding more complexity.


Im sorry you are offended by my clumping N&Z together with the Slayers. they are both fringe players in my book and add little to overall understanding because they 'dont play well with others'. especially with actual physicists.

 

[gslack]

thanks for proving my point in #1780


I already did 'man up'. I choose the truth, to the best I can determine it by the available evidence, not by affiliation to any group or mindset.

Feynman is the only scientist that I 'worship'. Spencer has been handing the Slayers their asses for years. equilibrium temperature is a function of (input) minus (output). change either side and you change the temp, it's as simple as that.

unfortunately there are too many boneheads like you around that shit the bed for the real skeptics. CO2 affects the radiative properties of the atmosphere. to paraphrase Lindzen, "trivially true but highly exaggerated". most, but not all, of the IR radiation choked off by the extra CO2 in the lower atmosphere finds other pathways to escape. some goes into raising surface temperature, otherwise that energy would already have been taking alternate paths, equilibriums change flow rates and not necessarily in a linear fashion.

deniers like you are not as dangerous as the exaggerators who want to wreck the world economy by making foolish and expensive decisions that have no hope of working, but you certainly make the honest skeptic's job harder by being such an easy target for scorn. that is why I spend as much time criticizing idiot extremists on your fringe as the idiot extremists on the warmer fringe. real skeptics point out the weakness in CO2 theory, they dont concoct their own bizarre theories that taint the believability and reputation of others on their side.

No Ian you have never manned-up. You fear being wrong. Like spencer and any number of other "scientists" who would rather spread a scientific mystery as explained fact, rather than appear lacking or unknowing.

The truth is they don't really know what happens at the sub-atomic and atomic levels. They are guessing based on what they can figure out using theoretical mathematics. That's it. They think that some of the energy must flow back to it's source because mathematically it shows it must. They can't prove it, they can't observe the phenomenon well enough to be sure, all they know is according to their current level of understanding and math, it's should be correct.

The theory has not been quantified, yet these idiots push it has fact anyway because their careers depend on it.

If you accept that EM radiation shows properties of BOTH a wave and a particle, the theory falls flat. A wave as shown in many experiments, cannot flow back to it's greater source. It can interfere with it, but cannot fully oppose or flow back against it. A particle on the other hand allows for some lee way in that. And when you add in frequency variance, or phases, you can even make the argument for very limited two-way energy flow. BUT you have to negate the wave-like properties to make the case.

Even the argument the sock brigade made about "net heat" flow, will not change the issue. Whether you call it "net heat flow" and assume some flows back to it's source, or not the greater heat is still going out, meaning at best the net heat is diffused and not warming the source.

We have been over this time and again, and every time you have to come to the point that you cannot logically argue the theory well enough, so you play dumb and become a sarcastic ass or run away.. Why do you think that is? Why is it when you take the argument as far as you can, you always end up at the same stalemates?

Simple, your theory has holes in it and it's incomplete at best, if not completely false.. Too many unknowns, too many unproven and unverified processes, to even consider it a fact yet..

yes, we have been over it a hundred times. equilibrium temperature is based on input (mostly from the sun, temperature invariant) minus output (radiation, convection, latent, which are all temperature dependent). choking off the output warms the surface, not by the energy returning from the atmosphere, but by the radiation that fails to escape in a timely fashion. the same stable input from the sun can result in a wide range of surface temperatures depending on the conditions that affect the output of energy into space. it is a simple concept but totally beyond your ken.

I bolded the backpeddling part..

WTF Ian? You are now claiming that back-radiation doesn't exist? Or is it just more of your waffling? If you are now stating that, wtf was all of your BS before? We stated time and again the extra "warming" claimed in AGW theory does not come from back-radiation from the atmosphere to it's warmer source (the surface warmed by the sun), and that was what set you off every time.. You spent post after post trying to defend backradiation, yet here you are denying it's existence now...

Dude do you even know what you believe on this? Unfreaking believable man.. ROFL

 

[gslack]

there is basically zero chance of teaching SSDD anything about the SLoT. he has his Slayer talking points and refuses to discuss anything else. he wont talk about whether the earth/atmosphere is an open or closed system. he wont talk about whether the atomic scale has different rules than the macroscopic scale (actually that is wrong, he believes in Maxwell's Daemon forbidding certain interactions). just try to get an answer out of him to the question of whether or not objects still radiate energy if they are the same temperature as their surroundings. to SSDD photons are just a theory with no evidence, or some such thing.

Why tell that lie Ian? Are you reall not above such dishonesty? I don't have any slayer statements? I simply have the second law itself. What does it say? Is there a credible reference that makes the statement of the second law in terms of net flow? Is there a single repeatable experiment that demonstrates net energy flow? Or does every possible experiment only prove that energy only moves from a low energy state to a higher energy state?

And the earth is an open system. When have I ever said otherwise or refused to discuss the topic? You apparently only seem to think that the laws of nature operate in certain systems but we both know that isn't true.

It isn't difficult to find materials that discuss the second law in open systems as well as closed systems.

What is difficult, in fact, impossible, is to find any actual evidence to support your belief in two way energy flow. Net flow is a matter of faith, not actual evidence.

I wish SSDD wasnt nominally on the skeptics side because he is an embarrassment when he talks about the science, Slayer science.

When have I ever talked about slayer science? I recently suggested you visit Johnson's site to review some of the very fundamental problems with QM although I doubt that you did and when you asked for a more realistic energy budget than trenberth's I pointed you toward Postma's and asked why you objected to it. You claimed that he didn't provide any nubers but of course he did and you simply drifted away rather than actually say why you prefer trenberth's cartoon to postma's realistic model. We both know why but lets not say it in public.

As far as my position on an atmospheric thermal effect, that comes from N&Z who to the best of my knowledge, aren't slayers and even if they were, their model still predicts the temperatures of every known planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while trenberth's can't even accurately predict the temperature here without an ad hoc greenhouse effect.

There is no reason to be a liar Ian, so why do it?

the laws of thermodynamics were formulated before we had an understanding of what was going on at the atomic level. they are perfectly correct for systems of large numbers of particles because the laws are statistical in nature. for a single particle they have no meaning. a single particle has no 'temperature'. you also confuse the packets of energy emitted as photons with the properties of particles of mass. photons, once emitted, exist until they interact with a bit of matter, they dont cancel out, they dont have a problem being in the same space as another photon. marbles down inclines, water down river banks, electrons through wires, etc are particles of matter which cannot exist in the same piece of space with other particles. the impact of this difference in properties between photons and mass is that there is two way flow of photons but not two way flow of matter. two objects of the same temp are continuously radiating at each other and absorbing the other's radiation so that there is no net exchange of energy.

there are other pieces to the thermodynamic laws, such as entropy, but until you come to grips with the basic properties of radiation there is no point in adding more complexity.


Im sorry you are offended by my clumping N&Z together with the Slayers. they are both fringe players in my book and add little to overall understanding because they 'dont play well with others'. especially with actual physicists.

the bolded part...

And they are known as laws now, meaning they have been found correct time and again, and accepted as basic truths... UNLIKE Q&M, string theory, and any number of other theoretical concepts regarding atomic and subatomic behavior and interactions.

Again you mention particles and do not mention waves. Duality, it's part and parcel with QM. There are many examples of QM not gelling with classical physics, yet it's overlooked because it's the best we have right now. Doesn't make it correct in all things and certainly doesn't make it a law. On that basis alone, we can question GH theory, yet not you..LOL How is that? How is it that GH theory is considered fact in the media and by you, when the very theory it relies on isn't a fact?

 

[PMZ]

Here is a simple two page presentation of planet earth, surrounded by nothing, considering that only radiant energy can come into the closed system, and only radiant energy can leave. And if the two are not equal, there must be dynamics at play which will ultimately result in them being equal.

Just to set a benchmark, is there anybody who disagrees with this level of detail?

Earth's Energy Budget

 

[PMZ]

Yes, I am. Hybrids have stayed stagnant and now VW has a TDI with an 80 mpg rating.

I suggest you get a copy of Top Gear magazine and take a look at the vehicle stats they publish at the back of every issue!

First of all hybrids haven't stayed stagnant and second of all the VW TDI that you bring up is one that they plan to make some day.

Volkswagen prepares to build the world's most fuel efficient production car

Sure thing Bozo....Not too current are ya!


"84 mpg?! Couple Break Mileage Record With Passat TDI

John and Helen Taylor really know how to stretch a tank of gas. The couple squeezed 1,626 miles out of one tank of diesel fuel in a Volkswagen Passat TDI, breaking previous records.

During a three-day trip, the couple set out to beat the previous record for the most miles covered on a single tank of diesel: 1,526.6 by a VW Passat diesel in Europe.

The Taylors left Houston on May 3 in a 2012 Passat TDI with a manual transmission and ran out of fuel three days and nine states later in Sterling, Va.

Before the drive, the speedometer and odometer were calibrated by a state-certified testing facility. The Houston Police Department oversaw the initial fuel fill-up and sealed the gas tank at the beginning of the drive. At the end, a Loudoun County, Va., sheriff's deputy verified the ending mileage and removed the fuel-tank seal. The result was a whopping 84.1 mpg; the Passat TDI is EPA-rated at 31/43 mpg city/highway.

According to Volkswagen, the couple aimed to simulate real-world driving conditions and loaded the car with 120 pounds of luggage, drove in daytime traffic, took turns at the wheel and didn’t spend more than 14 hours on the road each day.

But the Taylors aren't strangers to mileage challenges: They've made a career out of driving efficiently and conducting workshops on fuel-efficient driving techniques. They hold more than 90 world fuel-economy and vehicle-related records."



84 mpg?! Couple Break Mileage Record With Passat TDI - KickingTires

Team Achieves 110 MPG Average In Prius : TreeHugger

 

[PMZ]

Im still waiting for you to start that thread on the Slayer's theories. it is just as ridiculous to deny the 'greenhouse effect' as it is to claim that CO2 runs the climate.

LOL, what's stupid is worshiping a half-ass "scientist" like you do. Spencer the scientist you worship, wastes so much effort trying to defend something that is as scientifically unsound as believing in the tooth fairy, I don't see how he is respected at all any more..

He wants to peddle his own books and his website, and his career has been made on GH theory, so he plays the safe route and condemns the extreme claims yet defends the pseudo-science behind it. He's an opportunistic save-ass..

Whenever you are tested on the theory, you run away or play dumb in that childish way we have all come to know too well on here. The "what do you mean" act, or the sarcastic asshole shtick.. You're a coward on it Ian, and that's been shown time and again. You are literally one-step away from being a warmer. Why not just take the plunge and get it over with? You spend more time defending the warmer position anyway..

Why bother? You are a warmer.. You just lack the balls to say so and come out with it. You don't want to risk anything, can't afford to be wrong so you take the middle ground... Where the cowards live...

Man up Ian, quit pussy-footing around and pick a damn side already.

thanks for proving my point in #1780

it really is a shame that concern about the earth and 'climate' has devolved into a political struggle with both sides taking stance of "you're either with me, or against me". unfortunately that type of position makes it easy to dismiss valid points from both sides before they are even examined.

I already did 'man up'. I choose the truth, to the best I can determine it by the available evidence, not by affiliation to any group or mindset.

Feynman is the only scientist that I 'worship'. Spencer has been handing the Slayers their asses for years. equilibrium temperature is a function of (input) minus (output). change either side and you change the temp, it's as simple as that.

unfortunately there are too many boneheads like you around that shit the bed for the real skeptics. CO2 affects the radiative properties of the atmosphere. to paraphrase Lindzen, "trivially true but highly exaggerated". most, but not all, of the IR radiation choked off by the extra CO2 in the lower atmosphere finds other pathways to escape. some goes into raising surface temperature, otherwise that energy would already have been taking alternate paths, equilibriums change flow rates and not necessarily in a linear fashion.

deniers like you are not as dangerous as the exaggerators who want to wreck the world economy by making foolish and expensive decisions that have no hope of working, but you certainly make the honest skeptic's job harder by being such an easy target for scorn. that is why I spend as much time criticizing idiot extremists on your fringe as the idiot extremists on the warmer fringe. real skeptics point out the weakness in CO2 theory, they dont concoct their own bizarre theories that taint the believability and reputation of others on their side.

"most, but not all, of the IR radiation choked off by the extra CO2 in the lower atmosphere finds other pathways to escape."

Long term there is only one way to escape. Be radiated out into space. There is only one way for that to happen. Higher global system temperature.

"exaggerators who want to wreck the world economy by making foolish and expensive decisions"

What evidence do you have that doing nothing isn't the most expensive alternative?

 

[PMZ]

it really is a shame that concern about the earth and 'climate' has devolved into a political struggle with both sides taking stance of "you're either with me, or against me". unfortunately that type of position makes it easy to dismiss valid points from both sides before they are even examined.

climate models are a useful tool to test our improving knowledge of the factors that run climate but are not meant to be able to predict the future with any certainty. hell, most of them cannot replicate the past without arbitrary fine tuning of inputs that seriously impact how the models run. (check out J Curry's latest post). it is not that climate models are 'wrong', it is that the media and the public demanded that they be used for a purpose which they are not well suited.

CO2, and the theory of CO2 warming, is another example of focusing on one area that is a legitimately worthy case for interest, and perhaps for concern, but to the exclusion of the heavy hitters in climate like water in its many forms. most of the energy comes into the earth at tropical locations and is pumped out by hydrological means, either convection and clouds, or ocean currents. CO2 is a pittance compared to these functions which have kept the tropical oceans at a very stable temp no matter what conditions prevailed. CO2 may theoretically be able to impede the loss of some IR radiation but that does not mean that that same IR can directly heat the surface. mostly all it does is add energy to the heat pump mechanisms that are controlled and governed by water/evaporation/clouds. the clouds get rid of energy whether it is a lot, or a little. open water seldom exceeds 29C, and never exceeds 31C. available energy simply turns on the heat pump. until we have a much better understanding of hydrological mechanisms, focusing on CO2 is just a joke.

"climate models are a useful tool to test our improving knowledge of the factors that run climate but are not meant to be able to predict the future with any certainty."

Their only useful function is predicting the future with adequate certainty so that we can change the costly path that we've put ourselves on.

The science isn't really the point. The future is. The science is merely the way to test the weather effects of various sustainable energy strategies and technologies to see which gives the most bang for the buck.

The science has demonstrated, adequately to the vast majority of doers, that doing nothing is unaffordable. Given that, what sequence and strategy of technological solutions gets us out of the Dodge City that we've inadvertently put ourselves in, and on to a sustainable future.

While the newly created science of climatology will now forever be a key field of study, it's done what is needed for now, and handed over the adequate models to energy engineering.

I am all for supporting new advancements in technology but that means putting money into the hand of people who are capable of using it for developement. the govt seems to invariably find charlatans who are more than happy to take their slice and let the project go bankcrupt.

a lot of warmer policies are akin to buying a thousand dollars worth of insurance for two thousand dollars. expensive and futile.

"a lot of warmer policies are akin to buying a thousand dollars worth of insurance for two thousand dollars. expensive and futile"

What the heck is a warmer policy?

 

[PMZ]

Sorry, but it is you who is having problems. CO2 immediately emits the IR it absorbs. It does not have the capacity to hold on to even the smallest amount of IR. Feel free to keep trying. Like I said, very intertaining.

By the way, your idiot experiment is done in a closed system. You will see a temperature rise in your container, but it is due to a phenomenon known as the heat of compression...look it up.

If you put an outlet valve on top of your container so that the pressure within doesn't increase as you add IR, you will not see a temperature rise.

You are laughably inept on the ideal gas law. Try Wikipedia.

Again try and learn something. Once again, the topic is heat of compression. Must I post a link for you?

The "heat of compression" is an observable consequence of the ideal gas law. As is expansion cooling. As is your little example of letting gas out of a closed container

 

[PMZ]

You are laughably inept on the ideal gas law. Try Wikipedia.

Again try and learn something. Once again, the topic is heat of compression. Must I post a link for you?

an interesting perspective, especially if you turn it about. how much does the atmosphere 'puff out' during the day as it absorbs heat from the sun, only to lose it during the night. the virial theorum that describes how kinetic and potential energy are adjusted to have maximum efficiency is an underutilized resource in atmospheric climatology.

It's easy to measure the height of the waves on top of the atmosphere caused by what you call "puffing out". Use a barometer.

Processes that move energy around the closed system don't change the energy balance and therefore the global average temperature.