OK... so why CO2 trails temperature?

[catatomic]

OK, since nobody is contesting IanC and SSDD I will go ahead and assume that, as far as I can tell, it seems there is at most very little involvement of man in climate change.

Of course, AGW also includes nuclear bombs and I wonder about the magnetic poles shifting. Maybe we can talk about them if you want to keep the thread going.

 

[Wuwei]

OK, since nobody is contesting IanC and SSDD I will go ahead and assume that, as far as I can tell, it seems there is at most very little involvement of man in climate change.

Of course, AGW also includes nuclear bombs and I wonder about the magnetic poles shifting. Maybe we can talk about them if you want to keep the thread going.

You should really keep an open mind. A lot of the posters here really stray away from science and get their "theorys" from blogs. This forum is not the place to form an opinion.

This is one of the best explanations of the green house effect that I've seen.
Simple Models of Climate

Current understanding begins at the paragraph next to Fourier's picture. It starts with

How does the Earth’s blanket of air impede the outgoing heat radiation?​

The article doesn't require much physics knowledge, but it is long and not an easy read.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

OK, since nobody is contesting IanC and SSDD I will go ahead and assume that, as far as I can tell, it seems there is at most very little involvement of man in climate change.

Really? THAT is how you make up your mind about complicated scientific topics? How fucking ridiculous!

 

[SSDD]

If you see something about a dimmer switch there, or simultaneous two way energy flow, or the radiator radiating simply according to its own temperature, or any of the other gross misconceptions you have about what that equation says, then feel free to point out the expressions that cause you to believe that the equation says anything other than what I just stated.

Here is your misconception that numerous people pointed out numerous times. Note that all scientists for the last 100 years have known that there is two way energy flow: emission and absorption.

This is the only thing that scientists have found that makes sense:

Rₑ = εσT₁⁴ , . .where Rₑ is the rate of emission.

Rₐ =εσT₂⁴, , . .where Rₑ is the rate of absorption.

The net rate is the difference;

Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ = εσT₁⁴ - εσT₂⁴ = εσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

It is not only incorrect in the field of physics to simply apply a mathematical property like the distributive property to an equation that is describing a physical phenomenon without justification for doing so, it is terrible math to apply a property like the distributive property to an already reduced equation for no other reason than to attempt to convince people that a thing that isn't happening is happening.

If you can justify the application of the distributive property to that equation by showing some actual observation and measurement of simultaneous two way energy flow, then lets see it.....I have only been asking for about 3 decades now and am still waiting for the evidence...do you have it? Of course you don't. What you have is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model...and that is it.

 

[SSDD]

OK, since nobody is contesting IanC and SSDD I will go ahead and assume that, as far as I can tell, it seems there is at most very little involvement of man in climate change.

Of course, AGW also includes nuclear bombs and I wonder about the magnetic poles shifting. Maybe we can talk about them if you want to keep the thread going.

You should really keep an open mind. A lot of the posters here really stray away from science and get their "theorys" from blogs. This forum is not the place to form an opinion.

This is one of the best explanations of the green house effect that I've seen.
Simple Models of Climate

Current understanding begins at the paragraph next to Fourier's picture. It starts with

How does the Earth’s blanket of air impede the outgoing heat radiation?​

The article doesn't require much physics knowledge, but it is long and not an easy read.

the simple climate models...and the complex climate models are abject failures...why would someone want to wade through an essay on failed models of the earth's climate in an attempt to understand the earth's climate?

 

[SSDD]

OK, since nobody is contesting IanC and SSDD I will go ahead and assume that, as far as I can tell, it seems there is at most very little involvement of man in climate change.

Really? THAT is how you make up your mind about complicated scientific topics? How fucking ridiculous!

Considering that neither you, nor any other AGW believer can offer up the first piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...with all the pseudoscience that has been published and all the billions upon billions of dollars that have been flushed down the toilet on the hypothesis, what other conclusion could a rational individual reach.

If you have some actual evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, then by all means step on up to the plate and show us...

Of course we all know by now that you won't...because you can't...because no such evidence exists...but feel free to proceed with one of your litany of logical fallacies, or a bit of impotent bullying if you like, although it would be better for the local environment if you just shut the hell up and run away in the face of your inability to provide anything in the way of real data to counter my position.

 

[Wuwei]

It is not only incorrect in the field of physics to simply apply a mathematical property like the distributive property to an equation that is describing a physical phenomenon without justification for doing so, it is terrible math to apply a property like the distributive property to an already reduced equation for no other reason than to attempt to convince people that a thing that isn't happening is happening.

You have it totally backwards. The physics comes first with emission and absorption of photons, namely this.

Rₑ = εσT₁⁴ , . .where Rₑ is the rate of emission.
Rₐ = εσT₂⁴, , . .where Rₑ is the rate of absorption.

All scientists for the past hundred years have known this.

Then the net rate of emission is found by subtracting the absorption from the emission like this:

Rnet = Rₑ - Rₐ

Now comes the arithmetic by substitution and simplification, like this:

Rnet = εσT₁⁴ - εσT₂⁴ = εσ(T₁⁴ – T₂⁴)

It is such simple physics. I don't understand why you can't get it. You are thinking valid arithmetic is changing physical law? That is impossible. Maybe you cling to your faith against science because you abhor AGW, or maybe you are just a troll.

 

[catatomic]

OK, since nobody is contesting IanC and SSDD I will go ahead and assume that, as far as I can tell, it seems there is at most very little involvement of man in climate change.

Really? THAT is how you make up your mind about complicated scientific topics? How fucking ridiculous!

Considering that neither you, nor any other AGW believer can offer up the first piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...with all the pseudoscience that has been published and all the billions upon billions of dollars that have been flushed down the toilet on the hypothesis, what other conclusion could a rational individual reach.

If you have some actual evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, then by all means step on up to the plate and show us...

Of course we all know by now that you won't...because you can't...because no such evidence exists...but feel free to proceed with one of your litany of logical fallacies, or a bit of impotent bullying if you like, although it would be better for the local environment if you just shut the hell up and run away in the face of your inability to provide anything in the way of real data to counter my position.

Yeah, I'm not going to discount AGW without following what Wuwei has said, and Frankly Fort Fun Indiana you are just as fucking ridiculous.

 

[IanC]

The difficulty for any physics problem is to find the basic law which controls majority of the solution, and then decide how many confounding factors to add in until you get an answer that is a reasonable approximation of reality.

Conversely, you can take reality and remove as many confounding factors as possible and find a good approximation of the basic physical law.

Stefan used a very clever experimental set-up and discovered the basic law that a Blackbody radiates proportional to the fourth power of its temperature in degrees Kelvin. The design removed most of the confounding factors and complexies that ordinarily make the calculations difficult.

Objects radiate according to T^4 and emmisivity, all the time. You cannot change the amount of radiation without changing the temperature. The temperature itself is just a symptom of the available stored energy. No change in radiation happens unless you add or subtract from the stored energy, unless you subscribe to SSDD's bizarre theory that radiation is somehow controlled by outside influences.

Radiation is an intrinsic property. Power is an extrinsic property. SSDD doesn't know the difference.

 

[Wuwei]

Yeah, I'm not going to discount AGW without following what Wuwei has said, ....

If you haven't figured it out so far, the article consists of a lot of history starting over 100 years ago. The climate theory gets increasingly complex as you go through the history. That is why the article is so long. If you are able to wade through most of it, you will come out knowing more about the science of climate than most people on this environment forum.

 

[catatomic]

I'm sorry I am a busy person in case you haven't guessed and have to get around to these things.

 

[SSDD]

Yeah, I'm not going to discount AGW without following what Wuwei has said, ....

If you haven't figured it out so far, the article consists of a lot of history starting over 100 years ago. The climate theory gets increasingly complex as you go through the history. That is why the article is so long. If you are able to wade through most of it, you will come out knowing more about the science of climate than most people on this environment forum.

Yes, when you try to resurrect failed science for political gain, it pretty much has to get more complex doesn't it...complex enough, at least, so that most people don't bother to look back at the fundamental failure of the hypothesis.

 

[Sunsettommy]

New here in the forum, but not to the "global warming" debate.

I read through the long thread to see that SSDD request has never been answered.

I wonder why so many fall for the unverified modeling construct with already well accounted prediction/projection failures to brag about.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I learned long ago to mainly stay out the argument that was commonly applied in this thread because it has too many assumptions, guesses and poor understanding of energy flows. It is a field littered with a lot of logical failures in it since it is hard to convince anyone on why the AGW conjecture is junk using the atmosphere transfer arguments. It is all over the map and not well understood.

I usually argue on what is real and provable that should be easy to see for even the layman. Example,

there are many alarmists talk of warmest year on record being brought up over and over (almost yearly now) making clear they say this is proof of global warming based on the trace gas with a trace IR absorption effect in a big IR window.

The problem with that kind of thinking is that it doesn't address what the IPCC (prominent AGW conjecture supporter) predicted/projected on the RATE of warming, not about the peak of a temperature level alarmists wail about. It doesn't prove anything in support of the AGW because it doesn't say anything about how much of the warming is natural or CO2 caused at all, it is just a number of the moment is all it is.

How come alarmists don't talk about the PER DECADE warming rate, which is a base prediction/projection from day one of the 1990 IPCC report? the 1990 IPCC report made a PREDICTION that was based on the emission scenarios with CO2 effect, yes an actual prediction, which was on average of .30C per decade and warm by 1C in year 2025.

Have you looked at the Satellite data recently? It is not even close since it is about HALF that rate of about .15C per decade. Epic Fail!

 

[SSDD]

New here in the forum, but not to the "global warming" debate.

I read through the long thread to see that SSDD request has never been answered.

My request will never be answered...I can make it in perfect confidence that it won't be answered because the observed, measured data I ask for does not exist...nor will it ever exist.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I read through the long thread to see that SSDD request has never been answered.

Of course, it has been answered by the global scientific community, as SSDD knows less than nothing about any of this compared to any of them, and they thought of it on day one. But you deniers are here and not on university campuses in scoe tifoc societies or publishing in journals, because you are all frauds.

 

[SSDD]

I read through the long thread to see that SSDD request has never been answered.

Of course, it has been answered by the global scientific community, as SSDD knows less than nothing about any of this compared to any of them, and they thought of it on day one. But you deniers are here and not on university campuses in scoe tifoc societies or publishing in journals, because you are all frauds.

So you and the rest of the warmer wack jobs keep saying....and yet, you can't manage to bring a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability to slap me down with...This is it..your big chance to shut me up...slap me down...make me your bitch...all you need to do is bring a single shred of observed measured evidence that supports AGW over natural variability...

And what will you do with this big chance? A big fat nothing...you may call some names...offer up a logical fallacy, or simply run away....what you won't do is bring any of that evidence that you and yours claims exists in such abundance here...and why?...because it doesn't exist...anywhere.

When you first came here you were laughable...now you are just pitiful.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I read through the long thread to see that SSDD request has never been answered.

Of course, it has been answered by the global scientific community, as SSDD knows less than nothing about any of this compared to any of them, and they thought of it on day one. But you deniers are here and not on university campuses in scoe tifoc societies or publishing in journals, because you are all frauds.

I notice you didn't answer it.

Your name calling is beneath a good debate, since that is your signature I can't take you seriously.

Try better next time.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I notice that Fort Fun Indiana, completely ignored my Per Decade comment.

Carry on.

 

[SSDD]

I read through the long thread to see that SSDD request has never been answered.

Of course, it has been answered by the global scientific community, as SSDD knows less than nothing about any of this compared to any of them, and they thought of it on day one. But you deniers are here and not on university campuses in scoe tifoc societies or publishing in journals, because you are all frauds.

I notice you didn't answer it.

Your name calling is beneath a good debate, since that is your signature I can't take you seriously.

Try better next time.

He is just one more bullshit dupe among the herd of bullshit dupes that hang around here. He believes that the evidence exists even though he has never seen it...He believes that anyone who can tack a couple of letters behind his name is inherently smarter than he is and therefore not to be questioned...he simply accepts whatever he is told so long as it agrees with his political leanings.