In Support of the A in AGW

[Wuwei]

You miss the point...the signal detected was radio waves...not IR...

And the point still whooshes right over your head....The signal detected was a radio signal...to actually detect CMB, one must have an instrument cooled to about 3K...this really isn't that difficult...CMB was first detected via resonance radio frequency...not actual CMB...

Nope...what I mean is that energy moving from cool to warm has never been detected at ambient temperature....that is a fact...and clearly you don't understand as much as you think because you are still arguing about a detector that was collecting radio waves..at about 150 Ghz...

The IR from something at 2.7 K is a broad band of long wave radiation which is commonly called "radio frequencies". So what?

 

[SSDD]

That is totally untrue. That was known decades ago. If you really think it's ad hoc cite a source.

Here is an explanation...

The electron structure of an atom is supposed to be described by a wave function defined by 4 (integer) quantum numbers (n,l,m,s) with n = 1,2,..., the principal (shell) quantum number, l = 0,.., n -1, the azimutal quantum number, m ranging from -l to +l the magnetic quantum number and s = +- 1/2 the spin quantum number.

The 3 quantum numbers (n,l,m) describe the wave functions for excited states (eigen-functions or orbitals) of the Hydrogen atom, with the 1 wave function for n = 1 representing the s-state of the first shell, the 1+ 3 = 4 wave functions for n = 2 representing the p-states of the second shell, and the 4 + 5 = 9 wave functions for n = 3 representing the d-states of the the third shell et cet. The connection is that the Hydrogen eigen-functions form a basis allowing the electronic structure of a multi-electron atom to be represented by linear combinations.

We see that the number of Hydrogen orbitals equals n^2, which is to be compared with the observed number 2n^2 electrons in a complete shell, with He (2 electrons in shell 1), Ne (2 electrons in shell 1 and 8 in shell 2), Ar (2+8+8), Kr (2+8+18+8), et cet. A factor 2 is thus missing and this factor was introduced by adding a 4th quantum number as the two-valued spin quantum number s.
The spin quantum number thus came out as a forced resolution of a contradiction between observed electronic shell structure with 2n^2 electrons in a complete shell with a structure represented by n^2 Hydrogen orbitals. But a motivation that a multi-electron shell structure should resemble the s-p-d structure of the orbitals of the one-electron Hydrogen atom, was missing.

The structure of the periodic table is thus claimed to be inherited from the structure of Hydrogen orbitals augmented by spin, as the basic experimental support of quantum mechanics. But there are irregularities of the periodic table which require additional (ad hoc) assumptions such as Madelung's and Hund's rules.

QM does help the A in AGW... It illustrates the mechanism of back-scatter.

And yet this "backscatter" which according to trenberth is more than two times greater than the incoming radiation from the sun can not be measured at ambient temperature while the piddling incoming radiation from the sun can certainly be measured at ambient temperature....doesn't this strike you as strange?

 

[SSDD]

You miss the point...the signal detected was radio waves...not IR...

And the point still whooshes right over your head....The signal detected was a radio signal...to actually detect CMB, one must have an instrument cooled to about 3K...this really isn't that difficult...CMB was first detected via resonance radio frequency...not actual CMB...

Nope...what I mean is that energy moving from cool to warm has never been detected at ambient temperature....that is a fact...and clearly you don't understand as much as you think because you are still arguing about a detector that was collecting radio waves..at about 150 Ghz...

The IR from something at 2.7 K is a broad band of long wave radiation which is commonly called "radio frequencies". So what?

Try as hard as you like....CMB was first detected via resonant radio frequency by a radio telescope....that fact is never going to change and it doesn't prove your idiotic backscatter belief.

 

[Wuwei]

Here is an explanation...
............ Madelung's and Hund's rules.

For God's sake. That was in 1925. That was a problem in the early versions of Schrodinger's equation. All of that was totally explained later by Quantum ElectroDynamics.

And yet this "backscatter" which according to trenberth is more than two times greater than the incoming radiation from the sun can not be measured at ambient temperature while the piddling incoming radiation from the sun can certainly be measured at ambient temperature....doesn't this strike you as strange?

Nope. Of course it seems strange to anyone who doesn't believe back-scatter. How else can you explain why the earth doesn't freeze when it's radiating 400W/m2. And only absorbing. 160 W/m2 from the sun.

 

[Wuwei]

Try as hard as you like....CMB was first detected via resonant radio frequency by a radio telescope....that fact is never going to change and it doesn't prove your idiotic backscatter belief.

It has to hit a warm radio dish first. How do you explain that?

I can't take credit for the backscatter belief. It is believed by all scientists.

 

[jc456]

How else can you explain why the earth doesn't freeze when it's radiating 400W/m2. And only absorbing. 160 W/m2 from the sun.

As I explained in another thread, how hot does the incoming UV heat the ground, water, buildings, and don't you think they emit LWIR when they emit and it will be much greater than the incoming UV rays?

 

[SSDD]

Try as hard as you like....CMB was first detected via resonant radio frequency by a radio telescope....that fact is never going to change and it doesn't prove your idiotic backscatter belief.

It has to hit a warm radio dish first. How do you explain that?

You think radio waves have temperature?

I can't take credit for the backscatter belief. It is believed by all scientists.

Without the first actual observation, or measurement at ambient temperature....ladies and gentlemen...I give you the state of post modern science....Take a good look.


And on and on and on....and still not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified data in support of the A in AGW...which is what this particular thread is all about.

 

[SSDD]

Nope. Of course it seems strange to anyone who doesn't believe back-scatter. How else can you explain why the earth doesn't freeze when it's radiating 400W/m2. And only absorbing. 160 W/m2 from the sun.

You do realize don't you...that the solar flux at the TOA is 1368 wm2?.... That 161 number is an artifact of trenberths idiot cartoon pretending that the earth is flat, doesn't rotate and receives a weak twilight 24/7.... And the amount actually being absorbed across the entire surface of the earth is an estimate as to date, climate science isn't sure what the albedo of the earth is....

 

[IanC]

How many tests has AGW passed? None, right?

Wrong. Quantum mechanics predicts back scattering which has been measured.

Sorry but it hasn't....an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere isn't measuring backscatter...it is measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...that is not back scatter...according to you guys backscatter is energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth...that has never been observed and measured...

We went over Stefan-Boltzman law many times. You still don't understand it. As I said many times before, Thermal radiation energy moves from any object at any temperature to any other object at any other temperature. 100% of all physical scientists understand that.

What you seem to keep forgetting is that SB states that radiation moves form any object at any temperature in a vacuum...is the atmosphere a vacuum?

what a stupid thing to say.....the atmosphere IS the object.

 

[IanC]

Nope. Of course it seems strange to anyone who doesn't believe back-scatter. How else can you explain why the earth doesn't freeze when it's radiating 400W/m2. And only absorbing. 160 W/m2 from the sun.

You do realize don't you...that the solar flux at the TOA is 1368 wm2?.... That 161 number is an artifact of trenberths idiot cartoon pretending that the earth is flat, doesn't rotate and receives a weak twilight 24/7.... And the amount actually being absorbed across the entire surface of the earth is an estimate as to date, climate science isn't sure what the albedo of the earth is....

there is no way you can get 400w of surface radiation (15 degrees centigrade average) from average solar input of 160w without the atmosphere returning energy to the surface.

tell us where the extra energy comes from. be specific

 

[Wuwei]

Nope. Of course it seems strange to anyone who doesn't believe back-scatter. How else can you explain why the earth doesn't freeze when it's radiating 400W/m2. And only absorbing. 160 W/m2 from the sun.

You do realize don't you...that the solar flux at the TOA is 1368 wm2?.... That 161 number is an artifact of trenberths idiot cartoon pretending that the earth is flat, doesn't rotate and receives a weak twilight 24/7.... And the amount actually being absorbed across the entire surface of the earth is an estimate as to date, climate science isn't sure what the albedo of the earth is....

The solar flux is around 1368 only at the equator at high noon. The energy to the rest of the earth facing the sun fades to zero at sunset and sunrise. If you use Lambert's law, the average energy over the full daylight side drops by a factor of two. Then if you consider that half the earth is dark, the average energy drops by another factor of 2.

The total average energy per day and night is 1368 / 4 = 342 W/m2. A little over half that energy is not absorbed at the ground level and that amounts to around 160 W/m2. If you have a better idea of the albedo is, let us know, but I guarantee it will be much less than the 400 W/m2 the earth is continually radiating, day and night.

We went through all that a few months ago. Try to remember it this time.

 

[SSDD]

Nope. Of course it seems strange to anyone who doesn't believe back-scatter. How else can you explain why the earth doesn't freeze when it's radiating 400W/m2. And only absorbing. 160 W/m2 from the sun.

You do realize don't you...that the solar flux at the TOA is 1368 wm2?.... That 161 number is an artifact of trenberths idiot cartoon pretending that the earth is flat, doesn't rotate and receives a weak twilight 24/7.... And the amount actually being absorbed across the entire surface of the earth is an estimate as to date, climate science isn't sure what the albedo of the earth is....

The solar flux is around 1368 only at the equator at high noon. The energy to the rest of the earth facing the sun fades to zero at sunset and sunrise. If you use Lambert's law, the average energy over the full daylight side drops by a factor of two. Then if you consider that half the earth is dark, the average energy drops by another factor of 2.

The total average energy per day and night is 1368 / 4 = 342 W/m2. A little over half that energy is not absorbed at the ground level and that amounts to around 160 W/m2. If you have a better idea of the albedo is, let us know, but I guarantee it will be much less than the 400 W/m2 the earth is continually radiating, day and night.

We went through all that a few months ago. Try to remember it this time.

So we are now back to averages and models, and data manipulation in lieu of actual observed, measured, quantified data in support of the A in AGW...how unsurprising is that?

And I can't help but notice that your figures don't include any of the earth's own heat generating capacity...one more reason the models invariably fail...at this point climate science doesn't know enough to even include the parameters that drive the climate...much less settle the science..CO2 is not even a bit player...as evidenced by the warmer side of this discussion to provide even the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence which would support the A (read CO2) in AGW...

 

[SSDD]

How many tests has AGW passed? None, right?

Wrong. Quantum mechanics predicts back scattering which has been measured.

Sorry but it hasn't....an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere isn't measuring backscatter...it is measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...that is not back scatter...according to you guys backscatter is energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth...that has never been observed and measured...

We went over Stefan-Boltzman law many times. You still don't understand it. As I said many times before, Thermal radiation energy moves from any object at any temperature to any other object at any other temperature. 100% of all physical scientists understand that.

What you seem to keep forgetting is that SB states that radiation moves form any object at any temperature in a vacuum...is the atmosphere a vacuum?

what a stupid thing to say.....the atmosphere IS the object.

NO...CO2 molecules and any other radiative gas is the object....the rest of the atmosphere is invisible in so far as radiation is concerned...

 

[SSDD]

Nope. Of course it seems strange to anyone who doesn't believe back-scatter. How else can you explain why the earth doesn't freeze when it's radiating 400W/m2. And only absorbing. 160 W/m2 from the sun.

You do realize don't you...that the solar flux at the TOA is 1368 wm2?.... That 161 number is an artifact of trenberths idiot cartoon pretending that the earth is flat, doesn't rotate and receives a weak twilight 24/7.... And the amount actually being absorbed across the entire surface of the earth is an estimate as to date, climate science isn't sure what the albedo of the earth is....

there is no way you can get 400w of surface radiation (15 degrees centigrade average) from average solar input of 160w without the atmosphere returning energy to the surface.

tell us where the extra energy comes from. be specific

Atmospheric thermal effect...and the earth's own heat generating capacity...which at this point is a complete unknown....there is no back radiation...and there is no tropospheric hot spot...and back radiation which according to climate science is greater than the incoming radiation from the sun can not be measured at ambient temperature while the piddling 160 from the sun can be measured at ambient temperature with no problem...your hypothesis is a failure...and always will be....and still not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...

 

[jc456]

"The solar flux is around 1368 only at the equator at high noon. The energy to the rest of the earth facing the sun fades to zero at sunset and sunrise. If you use Lambert's law, the average energy over the full daylight side drops by a factor of two. Then if you consider that half the earth is dark, the average energy drops by another factor of 2.

The total average energy per day and night is 1368 / 4 = 342 W/m2. A little over half that energy is not absorbed at the ground level and that amounts to around 160 W/m2. If you have a better idea of the albedo is, let us know, but I guarantee it will be much less than the 400 W/m2 the earth is continually radiating, day and night.

We went through all that a few months ago. Try to remember it this time."

Do you believe the earth doesn't absorb incoming UV? You know the earth is mostly ocean right? I don't know you and others seem to be stuck on back radiation is hotter than UV rays and nowhere can you show a hot spot that those IR waves would heat up anything.

 

[Old Rocks]

My question is where is this evidence?
...
Heap the real evidence upon me....slap me down with it....make me your bitch...

---
You made yourself a bitch.
Even if you really wanted to see the evidence, you would not know what to do with it.
It's clear you don't understand science. so how can you understand the scientific evidence?

GW is a fact
The scientific evidence supporting the greenhouse theory is so strong that all the top scientific academies in the world agree.
If you really wanted to see the evidence, you can start with the Working Group I contribution to IPCC's AR5, which provides a comprehensive assessment of the physical science basis of climate change.

However, as a non-scientist, your eyes & brain will glaze.
So what's the point, other than showing everyone what a bitch you are?
.

Come on and post up the evidence you say is soooo devastating.

---
Hey BBob, why don't you simply look for it if you're really interested?
I already mentioned the IPCC-AR5's WG1 report has the evidence you clowns are asking for.
Just download the full WG1 report (375mb) and read it.
Let us know which of the 9,000+ cited scientific publications you dispute.
.

I dont do appeals to authority and models accepted as fact. AR5- WG1 is based on theoretical MODELING not empirical evidence. Ive read it, and I am not impressed with these fools who cite fantasy modeling, which has no predictive power and fails empirical review claiming it as undeniable fact. It is pure conjecture and that is the sad state of what passes for climate science at the UN.

Please feel free to post up the empirical, quantifiable, observed evidence, where and when it was obtained, and what it's error bounds are..

That is right, Silly Billy. You don't do appeals to authority, because you never ever have bothered to read any authoritative sources. Instead, you pull really stupid numbers and claims out of your ass, and make braindead claims as to your educational background.

The evidence supporting the A in AGW is simply overwhelming. From the laws of physics, to the observed evidence in the rising temperatures in the atmosphere and oceans. By using the then known laws of physics, Svante Arrhenius was able to make a reasonable estimate of the effects of doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere in 1896. All that has happened since then has confirmed his estimates.

 

[Wuwei]

So we are now back to averages and models, and data manipulation in lieu of actual observed, measured, quantified data in support of the A in AGW...how unsurprising is that?

The sun's output is easily measured. It's not a model. There is no data manipulation in determining the average energy output hitting earth.

And I can't help but notice that your figures don't include any of the earth's own heat generating capacity...one more reason the models invariably fail...at this point climate science doesn't know enough to even include the parameters that drive the climate...much less settle the science..CO2 is not even a bit player...as evidenced by the warmer side of this discussion to provide even the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence which would support the A (read CO2) in AGW...

You didn't answer the question: The surface of the earth absorbs 160 W/m2 SW radiation from the sun; and the surface emits 400 W/m2 LW radiation. Do you disagree significantly with those figures. If so, what do you think they are. If not, how do you reconcile that difference in energy.

 

[SSDD]

There is no data manipulation in determining the average energy output hitting earth.

Of course there is...it is all manipulated data...averages that have little meaning from day to day. We don't even know for sure what the albedo of the earth is so there is no way to know how much energy is actually absorbed by the surface of the earth.

You didn't answer the question: The surface of the earth absorbs 160 W/m2 SW radiation from the sun; and the surface emits 400 W/m2 LW radiation. Do you disagree significantly with those figures. If so, what do you think they are. If not, how do you reconcile that difference in energy.

As I have already said...atmospheric thermal effect...based on the ideal gas laws...and oddly enough, a method that accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere while the physics of the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature of earth without a fudge factor and doesn't even come close to predicting the temperatures of other planets....

But all this is nether here nor there....the thread is about your inability to produce even the first shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...Three pages now and counting without even the first bit of actual observed evidence that supports that all important A.

 

[Wuwei]

Of course there is...it is all manipulated data...averages that have little meaning from day to day. We don't even know for sure what the albedo of the earth is so there is no way to know how much energy is actually absorbed by the surface of the earth.

You are deflecting from the question again. The albedo has been continually observed and measured by satellites. The average is long term, where day to day, changes are averaged out.

As I have already said...atmospheric thermal effect...based on the ideal gas laws...and oddly enough, a method that accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere while the physics of the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature of earth without a fudge factor and doesn't even come close to predicting the temperatures of other planets....

That is old crap from an old blog. The ideal gas law only gives an estimate of air density as a function of altitude, not long term temperature dynamics.

But all this is nether here nor there....the thread is about your inability to produce even the first shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...Three pages now and counting without even the first bit of actual observed evidence that supports that all important A.

Yes, evidence has been presented. But you don't believe in quantum mechanics, so your response is neither here nor there.

Do you understand the question; how can the earth radiate 400 W/m2 when it receives only 160 from the sun.

 

[SSDD]

You are deflecting from the question again. The albedo has been continually observed and measured by satellites. The average is long term, where day to day, changes are averaged out.

Continually monitored and yet, we aren't sure....

A quick search yields figures from 0.20 to about .040...quite a spread...and GCM's have traditionally characterized it as constant but we are finding now that it isn't but aren't sure of the variation from season to season and don't have a clue as to how it effects the global climate budget...gaping holes in a basic requirement for understanding the global climate....and yet, you think the science is settled...

That is old crap from an old blog. The ideal gas law only gives an estimate of air density as a function of altitude, not long term temperature dynamics.

So you say and yet, it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature of earth without a fudge factor...

Yes, evidence has been presented. But you don't believe in quantum mechanics, so your response is neither here nor there.

I asked for observed, measured, quantified evidence collected from out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable world and thus far, neither you, nor anyone else has been able to put up...model output is all you have and it doesn't agree with actual observation...so what does climate science do?...it furiously manipulates the observed record in an attempt to keep up the models.

Do you understand the question; how can the earth radiate 400 W/m2 when it receives only 160 from the sun.

I answered the question...sorry you don't like it...now how about you....do you understand the point of this thread?....it is a request that you warmers provide some observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW that has actually been gathered out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable world....model output is not observed, measured, quantified evidence...it is a starting place...not an end... Do you think engineers start large projects based on model output that has not stood the test of observation, measurement, and quantification over and over and over again?