Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[ding]

New climate record is a reminder: Earth used to be way hotter, the oceans way higher (USA Today)

l.smartnews.com

What does that have to with the theoretical GHG effect calculations?

Do you know what the theoretical GHG effect temperature is for the entire atmosphere and all of it's GH gases?

 

[Crick]

What does that have to with the theoretical GHG effect calculations?

Do you know what the theoretical GHG effect temperature is for the entire atmosphere and all of it's GH gases?

Yes:

IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Working Group I, "The Physical Science Basis", Technical Summary, Page 92

 

[ding]

Yes:

View attachment 870838

Are you familiar with the work of Manabe and Strickler (1964)? And what they calculated the theoretical surface temperature of the earth should be based upon the GHG effect of the atmosphere?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yes:

View attachment 870838

Now ding knows as well.. result?..

 

[ding]

Now ding knows as well.. result?..

I've known for quite some time. Neither of you have.

Manabe and Strickler (1964) calculated the global-average strength of the “greenhouse effect” on surface temperatures assuming all energy transfers were radiative (no weather processes), based upon the theory of how infrared energy courses through the atmosphere. They found that the surface of the Earth would average a whopping 75 deg. C warmer than if there was no greenhouse effect. But in reality, the surface of the Earth averages about 33 deg. C warmer, not 75 deg. C warmer than a no-greenhouse Earth. That’s because convective air currents (which create weather) carry excess heat away from the surface, cooling it well below its full greenhouse effect value represented by their imagined “pure radiative energy equilibrium” assumption.

 

[ding]

I sleep like a baby at night knowing that disingenuous people like you two eventually get their just dessert.

 

[ReinyDays]

I've known for quite some time. Neither of you have.

You asked for theory ... they give you statistics ... that means they're lying ...

Disputes aren't allowed by the IPCC ... see how the recent international conference suppressed scientific objections? ... the math is wrong, why they don't use any ... ha ha ha ... physics without rigid mathematical proof is conjecture ...

See how temperatures go down when carbon dioxide goes up? ... 1880-1910 and 1940-1980 ... too funny ...

 

[ding]

You asked for theory ... they give you statistics ... that means they're lying ...

Disputes aren't allowed by the IPCC ... see how the recent international conference suppressed scientific objections? ... the math is wrong, why they don't use any ... ha ha ha ... physics without rigid mathematical proof is conjecture ...

So how temperatures go down when carbon dioxide goes up? ... 1880-1910 and 1940-1980 ... too funny ...

Yeah, that was pretty obvious. If you can't win, don't play. That's their strategy. Very sad. The good news is that those behaviors aren't like light switches; they can't be turned on and off easily. So you know whatever dishonest behaviors they demonstrate here they are demonstrating out there.

 

[ding]

Crick and Grumblenuts know that the theoretical GHG effect of CO2 and the atmosphere work against the IPCC's unreasonable and extreme exaggeration of their temperature forecasts. Which is why they run from these kind of discussions like cockroaches running from the light.

 

[ReinyDays]

Crick and Grumblenuts know that the theoretical GHG effect of CO2 and the atmosphere work against the IPCC's unreasonable and extreme exaggeration of their temperature forecasts. Which is why they run from these kind of discussions like cockroaches running from the light.

Cockroaches don't lie ... they don't sin either ... I'm a former slumlord ... soooooooooooooo ...

... I have a lot of respect for the little guys ...

 

[ding]

Cockroaches don't lie ... they don't sin either ... I'm a former slumlord ... soooooooooooooo ...

... I have a lot of respect for the little guys ...

So worse than cockroaches?

 

[Crick]

You asked for theory ... they give you statistics ... that means they're lying ...

You think the table in post #2602 is statistics?

Disputes aren't allowed by the IPCC ...

They most certainly are, and unlike in your universe, they get resolved.

see how the recent international conference suppressed scientific objections?

No, we didn't.

the math is wrong, why they don't use any

What math is wrong?

physics without rigid mathematical proof is conjecture ...

See how temperatures go down when carbon dioxide goes up? ... 1880-1910 and 1940-1980 ... too funny ...

Astounding. You claim to be a stickler for strict procedure but when faced with the complexities of reality, you cherry pick yourself into a corner filled with sharp stakes.

 

[ding]

You think the table in post #2602 is statistics?

They most certainly are, and unlike in your universe, they get resolved.

No, we didn't.

What math is wrong?

Astounding. You claim to be a stickler for strict procedure but when faced with the complexities of reality, you cherry pick yourself into a corner filled with sharp stakes.

I think you dishonestly dodge valid challenges.

You dismiss or ignore relevant data from that the best model anyone could ever build - the real world - which shows that convective air currents carry excess heat away from the surface of the planet, cooling it well below its full theoretical greenhouse gas effect value.

 

[Crick]

Are you familiar with the work of Manabe and Strickler (1964)? And what they calculated the theoretical surface temperature of the earth should be based upon the GHG effect of the atmosphere?

Tell us about it.

You dismiss or ignore relevant data from that the best model anyone could ever build - the real world - which shows that convective air currents carry excess heat away from the surface of the planet, cooling it well below its full theoretical greenhouse gas effect value.

Do you think the world's climate scientists or the models they've created ignore convection?

 

[ding]

Tell us about it.

They found that real world data shows that convective air currents carry excess heat away from the surface of the planet, cooling it well below its full theoretical greenhouse gas effect value.

 

[Crick]

They found that real world data shows that convective air currents carry excess heat away from the surface of the planet, cooling it well below its full theoretical greenhouse gas effect value.

In 1964. And what is the relevance today? Do you think the world's climate scientists are unaware of the process of convection?

 

[ding]

Do you think the world's climate scientists or the models they've created ignore convection?

No, I think their models are flawed because real world data shows that the surface temperature of the planet is 56% below its full theoretical greenhouse gas effect value while their models predict that an incrementally small increase of 280 ppm of CO2 will trap 450% of its theoretical greenhouse gas effect value.

Is this magic gas? Did they get this gas from the guy who sold Jack his beans?

 

[ding]

In 1964. And what is the relevance today? Do you think the world's climate scientists are unaware of the process of convection?

The relevance today is that the full effect of greenhouse gases are not seen at the surface of the planet but they are magnifying CO2's GHG effect by 450% at the surface of the planet.

 

[Crick]

No, I think their models are flawed because real world data shows that the surface temperature of the planet is 56% below its full theoretical greenhouse gas effect value

This is from your 1964 study? You claim to be knowledgeable in thermo basics. What do you mean by "56% below"? In fact, what do you actually mean by "greenhouse gas effect value"?

while their models predict that an incrementally small increase of 280 ppm of CO2 will trap 450% of its theoretical greenhouse gas effect value.

Which models? And if by an increase of 280 ppm you mean a doubling of the pre-industrial level, I know of no one who would characterize doubling as "incrementally small". And I presume that the term "greenhouse gas effect value" is a deltaT, the change in equilibrium temperature brought about by the greenhouse effect acting on the... what, 1750? 1850? 1950? 1964? levels? And if "gas effect value" is centigrade degrees, I don't understand what you intend to "trap" it with. And, again, what do you intend with "450%"?

Is this magic gas? Did they get this gas from the guy who sold Jack his beans?

Hard to say when I can't follow your argument. Too many undefined terms. Please try again.

 

[Crick]

The relevance today is that the full effect of greenhouse gases are not seen at the surface of the planet but they are magnifying CO2's GHG effect by 450% at the surface of the planet.

Perhaps I missed it but I didn't see a link to your Manabe and Strickler 1964 paper. I found it myself and it looks to be an impressive piece of work (https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6401.pdf) but it is all a scan of a printed document and thus readable but not searchable and only to be copied by hand. Can you perhaps point out (page and paragraph) where you came across some of the specific points you have made from it?