Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[Toddsterpatriot]

Warming caused by the cooler can not happen without energy use.

We aren't talking about that, we're talking about matter above 0K radiating in all directions.

Which leads us to your last question about why only 3-5 meters above the earth..? The word is CONDUCTION.

Again, we aren't talking about that, we're talking about matter above 0K radiating in all directions.

Look at the deserts at night. They have virtually the same levels of CO2 as the rest of the planet yet at night, just after dusk, as the ground is radiating at its greatest, CO2 it is incapable of retaining the heat.

How fast does the ground radiate on the Moon when the Sun sets?

It releases heat at a rate 3 times faster than an atmosphere of 30% humidity because LWIR is not stopped or slowed by CO2 alone in our open atmosphere.

Who ever claimed it is CO2 alone? How can the ground radiate faster in the dry air? Is the dry air colder?

IF a photon is released towards the ground and it is intercepted by another molecule does that molecule have to re-emit it back towards ground or can it emit it towards space?

It can be re-emitted in any direction. It can even emit a photon that actually hits the ground, even if the ground is warmer than the molecule that emitted it.

As the altitude of the molecule grows from the ground the chances a photon can be re-emitted towards the ground become less and less.

Can you explain further?

The laws of probability become near zero at just five meters at levels of 1000ppm.

Near 0% chance that a photon can be emitted downward? Seems unlikely, but please, expound.

All matter radiates in all directions above O deg Kelvin. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute, what does that potential energy do? What is it capable of? Can our output of CO2 influence what it does?

In my previous posts I have shown that it is essentially meaningless.

What is in dispute, what does that potential energy do? What is it capable of?

It's certainly capable of hitting a warmer object.

But it does nothing to the warmer object.. It can not because it can not overcome the law of thermal travel; Hotter object to Cooler Object. The shear numbers of photons overwhelms what little might return from CO2 or other items radiating in our atmosphere.

400ppm radiating simply can not heat up a warmer object because it, itself is cooler. Physical laws apply.

But it does nothing to the warmer object..

How does a photon do nothing to any object it hits?

It can not because it can not overcome the law of thermal travel;

Law of thermal travel? Sounds like something you made up.

Hotter object to Cooler Object.

We aren't talking about objects, we're talking about photons.

The shear numbers of photons overwhelms what little might return from CO2

Overwhelms? What does that mean? At least you're admitting photons from CO2 can return to the surface.

400ppm radiating simply can not heat up a warmer object because it, itself is cooler.

Can't heat it up? Every photon that hits adds heat to an object, warmer or not.

So you believe in magical photons which deny the laws of thermal dynamics..?

So you believe in magical photons which deny the laws of thermal dynamics..?

Can you post the "laws of thermal dynamics" and explain how they apply to photons?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Laws of probability - random distribution

A molecule can emit in a range of 360x360

That same molecule at 5 meters can radiate towards another round object (earth) 80x80

The calculations are a bit more complex than above but this photo kind of gives you a glimpse of how it is derived. As height increases the area of emittance where it could possibly contact earths surface diminishes. Then we add in how many other molecules it will encounter and their heights... The numbers become astronomically high that a surface emitted and then atmosphere re-emitted photon will actually return to earth.

As height increases the area of emittance where it could possibly contact earths surface diminishes.

Diminishes, slowly, yet still far, far higher than 0% chance. You see your error now?

But your missing the other matter in our atmosphere... as that height increases, that other mass increases also..

But your missing the other matter in our atmosphere...

How does "the other matter" excuse your confusion about the direction photons travel when emitted?

I mean 0% is an enormous error, you have to admit.

Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling... Then the earth didn't comply with their directive and less than 0.03 hundredths of a degree could even remotely be attributed to CO2 'back radiation'. So they lowered their estimates to 1 deg C per doubling and the pause happened throwing this prediction into the garbage.. now they are toying with 0.3 to 0.6 deg C per doubling .. Yet the empirical evidence says that we are at a zero influence attribution to CO2 today...

SO either your photons are having little to no effect or the water cycle on earth is laying the runaway theory falsified... To date no one has done the science to determine which it is.. Historical evidence suggests that CO2 and its 'back radiation' have had no effect in the past. So i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Are photons being emitted? Yes... Can they strike cooler objects? Yes.. It is the effect on the cooler matter that no one has proven through empirical, observed evidence.. You would have some magical photons that can defy thermal dynamics and heat transfer laws to have an impact.

Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling...

I already told you I'm not interested in liberal lies about AGW, I just want to discuss the physics.

SO either your photons are having little to no effect

Great, lets talk about photons.

i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Since we aren't talking about objects in contact with each other, but photons traveling freely in all directions, your confused understanding of thermodynamics and "smart photons" doesn't apply.

 

[Crick]

It's THERMODYNAMICS, not THERMAL DYNAMICS, Billy Boy. That rather firmly indicates you've never taken a class in the subject. But then, so does your IDIOTIC adaptation of SSDD's contention that cold doesn't radiate towards warm.

Instrumental estimates of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity from AR4

10.5 Quantifying the Range of Climate Change Projections - AR4 WGI Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections
Quantifying the Range of Climate Change Projections

Box 10.2: Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity
The likely range[1] for equilibrium climate sensitivity was estimated in the TAR [Third Assessment Report] (Technical Summary, Section F.3; Cubasch et al., 2001) to be 1.5°C to 4.5°C. The range was the same as in an early report of the National Research Council (Charney, 1979), and the two previous IPCC assessment reports (Mitchell et al., 1990; Kattenberg et al., 1996). These estimates were expert assessments largely based on equilibrium climate sensitivities simulated by atmospheric GCMs coupled to non-dynamic slab oceans. The mean ±1 standard deviation values from these models were 3.8°C ± 0.78°C in the SAR (17 models), 3.5°C ± 0.92°C in the TAR (15 models) and in this assessment 3.26°C ± 0.69°C (18 models).

So, you're claimed numbers are bullshit.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Laws of probability - random distribution

A molecule can emit in a range of 360x360

That same molecule at 5 meters can radiate towards another round object (earth) 80x80

The calculations are a bit more complex than above but this photo kind of gives you a glimpse of how it is derived. As height increases the area of emittance where it could possibly contact earths surface diminishes. Then we add in how many other molecules it will encounter and their heights... The numbers become astronomically high that a surface emitted and then atmosphere re-emitted photon will actually return to earth.

As height increases the area of emittance where it could possibly contact earths surface diminishes.

Diminishes, slowly, yet still far, far higher than 0% chance. You see your error now?

But your missing the other matter in our atmosphere... as that height increases, that other mass increases also..

But your missing the other matter in our atmosphere...

How does "the other matter" excuse your confusion about the direction photons travel when emitted?

I mean 0% is an enormous error, you have to admit.

Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling... Then the earth didn't comply with their directive and less than 0.03 hundredths of a degree could even remotely be attributed to CO2 'back radiation'. So they lowered their estimates to 1 deg C per doubling and the pause happened throwing this prediction into the garbage.. now they are toying with 0.3 to 0.6 deg C per doubling .. Yet the empirical evidence says that we are at a zero influence attribution to CO2 today...

SO either your photons are having little to no effect or the water cycle on earth is laying the runaway theory falsified... To date no one has done the science to determine which it is.. Historical evidence suggests that CO2 and its 'back radiation' have had no effect in the past. So i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Are photons being emitted? Yes... Can they strike cooler objects? Yes.. It is the effect on the cooler matter that no one has proven through empirical, observed evidence.. You would have some magical photons that can defy thermal dynamics and heat transfer laws to have an impact.

Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling...

I already told you I'm not interested in liberal lies about AGW, I just want to discuss the physics.

SO either your photons are having little to no effect

Great, lets talk about photons.

i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Since we aren't talking about objects in contact with each other, but photons traveling freely in all directions, your confused understanding of thermodynamics and "smart photons" doesn't apply.

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

As I understand the laws of EM wave propagation, it tells me that those photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength carrying greater power. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength carrying less power. Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer. The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler by factors of 10^6 order in energy held.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object one needs to simply look at the power differential of the waves being propagated. The law of thermal dynamics and why a cooler object can not warm a hotter object, in very simple terms.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It's THERMODYNAMICS, not THERMAL DYNAMICS, Billy Boy. That rather firmly indicates you've never taken a class in the subject. But then, so does your IDIOTIC adaptation of SSDD's contention that cold doesn't radiate towards warm.

Instrumental estimates of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity from AR4

10.5 Quantifying the Range of Climate Change Projections - AR4 WGI Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections
Quantifying the Range of Climate Change Projections

Box 10.2: Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity
The likely range[1] for equilibrium climate sensitivity was estimated in the TAR [Third Assessment Report] (Technical Summary, Section F.3; Cubasch et al., 2001) to be 1.5°C to 4.5°C. The range was the same as in an early report of the National Research Council (Charney, 1979), and the two previous IPCC assessment reports (Mitchell et al., 1990; Kattenberg et al., 1996). These estimates were expert assessments largely based on equilibrium climate sensitivities simulated by atmospheric GCMs coupled to non-dynamic slab oceans. The mean ±1 standard deviation values from these models were 3.8°C ± 0.78°C in the SAR (17 models), 3.5°C ± 0.92°C in the TAR (15 models) and in this assessment 3.26°C ± 0.69°C (18 models).

So, you're claimed numbers are bullshit.

Your so far out your in another ball parks left field..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As height increases the area of emittance where it could possibly contact earths surface diminishes.

Diminishes, slowly, yet still far, far higher than 0% chance. You see your error now?

But your missing the other matter in our atmosphere... as that height increases, that other mass increases also..

But your missing the other matter in our atmosphere...

How does "the other matter" excuse your confusion about the direction photons travel when emitted?

I mean 0% is an enormous error, you have to admit.

Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling... Then the earth didn't comply with their directive and less than 0.03 hundredths of a degree could even remotely be attributed to CO2 'back radiation'. So they lowered their estimates to 1 deg C per doubling and the pause happened throwing this prediction into the garbage.. now they are toying with 0.3 to 0.6 deg C per doubling .. Yet the empirical evidence says that we are at a zero influence attribution to CO2 today...

SO either your photons are having little to no effect or the water cycle on earth is laying the runaway theory falsified... To date no one has done the science to determine which it is.. Historical evidence suggests that CO2 and its 'back radiation' have had no effect in the past. So i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Are photons being emitted? Yes... Can they strike cooler objects? Yes.. It is the effect on the cooler matter that no one has proven through empirical, observed evidence.. You would have some magical photons that can defy thermal dynamics and heat transfer laws to have an impact.

Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling...

I already told you I'm not interested in liberal lies about AGW, I just want to discuss the physics.

SO either your photons are having little to no effect

Great, lets talk about photons.

i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Since we aren't talking about objects in contact with each other, but photons traveling freely in all directions, your confused understanding of thermodynamics and "smart photons" doesn't apply.

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

As I understand the laws of EM wave propagation, it tells me that those photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength. Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer. The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler by factors of 10^6 order.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object one needs to simply look at the power differential of the waves being propagated. The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects, in very simple terms.

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

Photons from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere? They travel in random directions, sometimes toward space, sometimes toward the ground.

photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength.

Yes.

Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer.

Yes again.

The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler

Yes yet a third time. I'll ignore the bad math at the end of that last sentence.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object

Here is where you go off the tracks.

The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects,

Again, we're talking about photons, not objects in contact.

I don't think anyone here has ever claimed that radiation from the 70 degree ground is emitted into the atmosphere, absorbed by GHGs and re-emitted to the ground, causing the ground to warm to 71 degrees.

Here is what back radiation does, it simply slows the rate of cooling. The warmer object, in this case the ground, still cools. Still emits more photons to the atmosphere than it receives back from the atmosphere.
There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics (not thermal dynamics FFS).
There is no need for the emitter, or the photon, to measure the temperature of the surroundings before deciding where, or if, to emit a photon.

The Stefan Boltzmann constant shows that energy emitted is based on the 4th power of the temperature.

So if the ground is 293K and the atmosphere is 273K, ignoring for the moment the different emissivity of each, the ground will emit about 33% more energy than the atmosphere. The ground still cools, back radiation just slows the cooling, because some energy is coming back down.

In the desert, less H20 means faster cooling because there is less energy coming back down and more escaping more quickly into space. When the Sun sets on the Moon, the lack of any back radiation, because of the lack of any atmosphere, is further evidence of the point we're trying to show you.

 

[Billy_Bob]

But your missing the other matter in our atmosphere... as that height increases, that other mass increases also..

But your missing the other matter in our atmosphere...

How does "the other matter" excuse your confusion about the direction photons travel when emitted?

I mean 0% is an enormous error, you have to admit.

Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling... Then the earth didn't comply with their directive and less than 0.03 hundredths of a degree could even remotely be attributed to CO2 'back radiation'. So they lowered their estimates to 1 deg C per doubling and the pause happened throwing this prediction into the garbage.. now they are toying with 0.3 to 0.6 deg C per doubling .. Yet the empirical evidence says that we are at a zero influence attribution to CO2 today...

SO either your photons are having little to no effect or the water cycle on earth is laying the runaway theory falsified... To date no one has done the science to determine which it is.. Historical evidence suggests that CO2 and its 'back radiation' have had no effect in the past. So i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Are photons being emitted? Yes... Can they strike cooler objects? Yes.. It is the effect on the cooler matter that no one has proven through empirical, observed evidence.. You would have some magical photons that can defy thermal dynamics and heat transfer laws to have an impact.

Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling...

I already told you I'm not interested in liberal lies about AGW, I just want to discuss the physics.

SO either your photons are having little to no effect

Great, lets talk about photons.

i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Since we aren't talking about objects in contact with each other, but photons traveling freely in all directions, your confused understanding of thermodynamics and "smart photons" doesn't apply.

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

As I understand the laws of EM wave propagation, it tells me that those photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength. Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer. The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler by factors of 10^6 order.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object one needs to simply look at the power differential of the waves being propagated. The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects, in very simple terms.

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

Photons from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere? They travel in random directions, sometimes toward space, sometimes toward the ground.

photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength.

Yes.

Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer.

Yes again.

The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler

Yes yet a third time. I'll ignore the bad math at the end of that last sentence.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object

Here is where you go off the tracks.

The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects,

Again, we're talking about photons, not objects in contact.

I don't think anyone here has ever claimed that radiation from the 70 degree ground is emitted into the atmosphere, absorbed by GHGs and re-emitted to the ground, causing the ground to warm to 71 degrees.

Here is what back radiation does, it simply slows the rate of cooling. The warmer object, in this case the ground, still cools. Still emits more photons to the atmosphere than it receives back from the atmosphere.
There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics (not thermal dynamics FFS).
There is no need for the emitter, or the photon, to measure the temperature of the surroundings before deciding where, or if, to emit a photon.

The Stefan Boltzmann constant shows that energy emitted is based on the 4th power of the temperature.

So if the ground is 293K and the atmosphere is 273K, ignoring for the moment the different emissivity of each, the ground will emit about 33% more energy than the atmosphere. The ground still cools, back radiation just slows the cooling, because some energy is coming back down.

In the desert, less H20 means faster cooling because there is less energy coming back down and more escaping more quickly into space. When the Sun sets on the Moon, the lack of any back radiation, because of the lack of any atmosphere, is further evidence of the point we're trying to show you.

I contend that water vapor is what holds heat near surface not CO2. The downward radiated LWIR is from water vapor and not CO2 as shown by the increase of CO2 without a corresponding increase in temp which is why they adjust the crap out of the historical temp record in an effort to keep the lie alive.

Were not to far apart in what we believe Todd. "back radiation" is a poor term. We should have stuck to real scientific terms to keep everyone on the same page. But that is Climate Science and the dishonesty, misdirection, and outright lies it has breed to keep the political agenda alive.

Scientifically speaking, the area we need to concentrate on is near surface heat transfer and why it has not acted like the AGW crowd has stated it would. Why the hypothesis has failed, and what is really happening. This can not occur until the agenda is killed dead and dissenting points of view are embraced, vetted out, and real science done.

CO2 is simply not creating the down welling LWIR they said it should... The deserts prove this, Venus proves this, the moon proves this.... WHY?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But your missing the other matter in our atmosphere...

How does "the other matter" excuse your confusion about the direction photons travel when emitted?

I mean 0% is an enormous error, you have to admit.

Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling... Then the earth didn't comply with their directive and less than 0.03 hundredths of a degree could even remotely be attributed to CO2 'back radiation'. So they lowered their estimates to 1 deg C per doubling and the pause happened throwing this prediction into the garbage.. now they are toying with 0.3 to 0.6 deg C per doubling .. Yet the empirical evidence says that we are at a zero influence attribution to CO2 today...

SO either your photons are having little to no effect or the water cycle on earth is laying the runaway theory falsified... To date no one has done the science to determine which it is.. Historical evidence suggests that CO2 and its 'back radiation' have had no effect in the past. So i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Are photons being emitted? Yes... Can they strike cooler objects? Yes.. It is the effect on the cooler matter that no one has proven through empirical, observed evidence.. You would have some magical photons that can defy thermal dynamics and heat transfer laws to have an impact.

Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling...

I already told you I'm not interested in liberal lies about AGW, I just want to discuss the physics.

SO either your photons are having little to no effect

Great, lets talk about photons.

i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Since we aren't talking about objects in contact with each other, but photons traveling freely in all directions, your confused understanding of thermodynamics and "smart photons" doesn't apply.

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

As I understand the laws of EM wave propagation, it tells me that those photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength. Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer. The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler by factors of 10^6 order.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object one needs to simply look at the power differential of the waves being propagated. The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects, in very simple terms.

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

Photons from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere? They travel in random directions, sometimes toward space, sometimes toward the ground.

photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength.

Yes.

Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer.

Yes again.

The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler

Yes yet a third time. I'll ignore the bad math at the end of that last sentence.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object

Here is where you go off the tracks.

The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects,

Again, we're talking about photons, not objects in contact.

I don't think anyone here has ever claimed that radiation from the 70 degree ground is emitted into the atmosphere, absorbed by GHGs and re-emitted to the ground, causing the ground to warm to 71 degrees.

Here is what back radiation does, it simply slows the rate of cooling. The warmer object, in this case the ground, still cools. Still emits more photons to the atmosphere than it receives back from the atmosphere.
There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics (not thermal dynamics FFS).
There is no need for the emitter, or the photon, to measure the temperature of the surroundings before deciding where, or if, to emit a photon.

The Stefan Boltzmann constant shows that energy emitted is based on the 4th power of the temperature.

So if the ground is 293K and the atmosphere is 273K, ignoring for the moment the different emissivity of each, the ground will emit about 33% more energy than the atmosphere. The ground still cools, back radiation just slows the cooling, because some energy is coming back down.

In the desert, less H20 means faster cooling because there is less energy coming back down and more escaping more quickly into space. When the Sun sets on the Moon, the lack of any back radiation, because of the lack of any atmosphere, is further evidence of the point we're trying to show you.

I contend that water vapor is what holds heat near surface not CO2. The downward radiated LWIR is from water vapor and not CO2 as shown by the increase of CO2 without a corresponding increase in temp which is why they adjust the crap out of the historical temp record in an effort to keep the lie alive.

Were not to far apart in what we believe Todd. "back radiation" is a poor term. We should have stuck to real scientific terms to keep everyone on the same page. But that is Climate Science and the dishonesty, misdirection, and outright lies it has breed to keep the political agenda alive.

Scientifically speaking, the area we need to concentrate on is near surface heat transfer and why it has not acted like the AGW crowd has stated it would. Why the hypothesis has failed, and what is really happening. This can not occur until the agenda is killed dead and dissenting points of view are embraced, vetted out, and real science done.

CO2 is simply not creating the down welling LWIR they said it should... The deserts prove this, Venus proves this, the moon proves this.... WHY?

I contend that water vapor is what holds heat near surface not CO2.

That's fine. As long as it gets you off the
"back radiation does not exist, because I don't understand the 2nd Law" SSDD moron train...........

"back radiation" is a poor term. We should have stuck to real scientific terms to keep everyone on the same page. But that is Climate Science and the dishonesty,

Fine. None of which excuses your ignorance and/or confusion.

CO2 is simply not creating the down welling LWIR they said it should

Their exaggeration aside, CO2 absorbs photons from the surface and sends some of them back to the surface.

Is it safe to say you now agree?

The deserts prove this

Is that why the Moon cools faster than the desert at sunset, because it has zero CO2?
Is that what you're trying to prove?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling... Then the earth didn't comply with their directive and less than 0.03 hundredths of a degree could even remotely be attributed to CO2 'back radiation'. So they lowered their estimates to 1 deg C per doubling and the pause happened throwing this prediction into the garbage.. now they are toying with 0.3 to 0.6 deg C per doubling .. Yet the empirical evidence says that we are at a zero influence attribution to CO2 today...

SO either your photons are having little to no effect or the water cycle on earth is laying the runaway theory falsified... To date no one has done the science to determine which it is.. Historical evidence suggests that CO2 and its 'back radiation' have had no effect in the past. So i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Are photons being emitted? Yes... Can they strike cooler objects? Yes.. It is the effect on the cooler matter that no one has proven through empirical, observed evidence.. You would have some magical photons that can defy thermal dynamics and heat transfer laws to have an impact.

Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling...

I already told you I'm not interested in liberal lies about AGW, I just want to discuss the physics.

SO either your photons are having little to no effect

Great, lets talk about photons.

i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Since we aren't talking about objects in contact with each other, but photons traveling freely in all directions, your confused understanding of thermodynamics and "smart photons" doesn't apply.

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

As I understand the laws of EM wave propagation, it tells me that those photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength. Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer. The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler by factors of 10^6 order.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object one needs to simply look at the power differential of the waves being propagated. The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects, in very simple terms.

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

Photons from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere? They travel in random directions, sometimes toward space, sometimes toward the ground.

photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength.

Yes.

Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer.

Yes again.

The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler

Yes yet a third time. I'll ignore the bad math at the end of that last sentence.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object

Here is where you go off the tracks.

The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects,

Again, we're talking about photons, not objects in contact.

I don't think anyone here has ever claimed that radiation from the 70 degree ground is emitted into the atmosphere, absorbed by GHGs and re-emitted to the ground, causing the ground to warm to 71 degrees.

Here is what back radiation does, it simply slows the rate of cooling. The warmer object, in this case the ground, still cools. Still emits more photons to the atmosphere than it receives back from the atmosphere.
There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics (not thermal dynamics FFS).
There is no need for the emitter, or the photon, to measure the temperature of the surroundings before deciding where, or if, to emit a photon.

The Stefan Boltzmann constant shows that energy emitted is based on the 4th power of the temperature.

So if the ground is 293K and the atmosphere is 273K, ignoring for the moment the different emissivity of each, the ground will emit about 33% more energy than the atmosphere. The ground still cools, back radiation just slows the cooling, because some energy is coming back down.

In the desert, less H20 means faster cooling because there is less energy coming back down and more escaping more quickly into space. When the Sun sets on the Moon, the lack of any back radiation, because of the lack of any atmosphere, is further evidence of the point we're trying to show you.

I contend that water vapor is what holds heat near surface not CO2. The downward radiated LWIR is from water vapor and not CO2 as shown by the increase of CO2 without a corresponding increase in temp which is why they adjust the crap out of the historical temp record in an effort to keep the lie alive.

Were not to far apart in what we believe Todd. "back radiation" is a poor term. We should have stuck to real scientific terms to keep everyone on the same page. But that is Climate Science and the dishonesty, misdirection, and outright lies it has breed to keep the political agenda alive.

Scientifically speaking, the area we need to concentrate on is near surface heat transfer and why it has not acted like the AGW crowd has stated it would. Why the hypothesis has failed, and what is really happening. This can not occur until the agenda is killed dead and dissenting points of view are embraced, vetted out, and real science done.

CO2 is simply not creating the down welling LWIR they said it should... The deserts prove this, Venus proves this, the moon proves this.... WHY?

I contend that water vapor is what holds heat near surface not CO2.

That's fine. As long as it gets you off the
"back radiation does not exist, because I don't understand the 2nd Law" SSDD moron train...........

"back radiation" is a poor term. We should have stuck to real scientific terms to keep everyone on the same page. But that is Climate Science and the dishonesty,

Fine. None of which excuses your ignorance and/or confusion.

CO2 is simply not creating the down welling LWIR they said it should

Their exaggeration aside, CO2 absorbs photons from the surface and sends some of them back to the surface.

Is it safe to say you now agree?

The deserts prove this


Is that why the Moon cools faster than the desert at sunset, because it has zero CO2?
Is that what you're trying to prove?

The moon has no atmosphere. If it did, the moon would cool at much the same rate with or without CO2.

CO2 back radiation is questionable as it is not seen or empirically observed in our atmosphere. The system itself has not responded to increased CO2 levels and what they expected to see. The empirical evidence suggests that CO2 is a follower of temp by about 200-800 years not a driver of it. What we are seeing today is simply the response of warming over 200 years ago as we exited the LIA and not man caused anything.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling...

I already told you I'm not interested in liberal lies about AGW, I just want to discuss the physics.

SO either your photons are having little to no effect

Great, lets talk about photons.

i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Since we aren't talking about objects in contact with each other, but photons traveling freely in all directions, your confused understanding of thermodynamics and "smart photons" doesn't apply.

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

As I understand the laws of EM wave propagation, it tells me that those photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength. Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer. The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler by factors of 10^6 order.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object one needs to simply look at the power differential of the waves being propagated. The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects, in very simple terms.

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

Photons from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere? They travel in random directions, sometimes toward space, sometimes toward the ground.

photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength.

Yes.

Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer.

Yes again.

The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler

Yes yet a third time. I'll ignore the bad math at the end of that last sentence.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object

Here is where you go off the tracks.

The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects,

Again, we're talking about photons, not objects in contact.

I don't think anyone here has ever claimed that radiation from the 70 degree ground is emitted into the atmosphere, absorbed by GHGs and re-emitted to the ground, causing the ground to warm to 71 degrees.

Here is what back radiation does, it simply slows the rate of cooling. The warmer object, in this case the ground, still cools. Still emits more photons to the atmosphere than it receives back from the atmosphere.
There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics (not thermal dynamics FFS).
There is no need for the emitter, or the photon, to measure the temperature of the surroundings before deciding where, or if, to emit a photon.

The Stefan Boltzmann constant shows that energy emitted is based on the 4th power of the temperature.

So if the ground is 293K and the atmosphere is 273K, ignoring for the moment the different emissivity of each, the ground will emit about 33% more energy than the atmosphere. The ground still cools, back radiation just slows the cooling, because some energy is coming back down.

In the desert, less H20 means faster cooling because there is less energy coming back down and more escaping more quickly into space. When the Sun sets on the Moon, the lack of any back radiation, because of the lack of any atmosphere, is further evidence of the point we're trying to show you.

I contend that water vapor is what holds heat near surface not CO2. The downward radiated LWIR is from water vapor and not CO2 as shown by the increase of CO2 without a corresponding increase in temp which is why they adjust the crap out of the historical temp record in an effort to keep the lie alive.

Were not to far apart in what we believe Todd. "back radiation" is a poor term. We should have stuck to real scientific terms to keep everyone on the same page. But that is Climate Science and the dishonesty, misdirection, and outright lies it has breed to keep the political agenda alive.

Scientifically speaking, the area we need to concentrate on is near surface heat transfer and why it has not acted like the AGW crowd has stated it would. Why the hypothesis has failed, and what is really happening. This can not occur until the agenda is killed dead and dissenting points of view are embraced, vetted out, and real science done.

CO2 is simply not creating the down welling LWIR they said it should... The deserts prove this, Venus proves this, the moon proves this.... WHY?

I contend that water vapor is what holds heat near surface not CO2.

That's fine. As long as it gets you off the
"back radiation does not exist, because I don't understand the 2nd Law" SSDD moron train...........

"back radiation" is a poor term. We should have stuck to real scientific terms to keep everyone on the same page. But that is Climate Science and the dishonesty,

Fine. None of which excuses your ignorance and/or confusion.

CO2 is simply not creating the down welling LWIR they said it should

Their exaggeration aside, CO2 absorbs photons from the surface and sends some of them back to the surface.

Is it safe to say you now agree?

The deserts prove this


Is that why the Moon cools faster than the desert at sunset, because it has zero CO2?
Is that what you're trying to prove?

The moon has no atmosphere. If it did, the moon would cool at much the same rate with or without CO2.

CO2 back radiation is questionable as it is not seen or empirically observed in our atmosphere. The system itself has not responded to increased CO2 levels and what they expected to see. The empirical evidence suggests that CO2 is a follower of temp by about 200-800 years not a driver of it. What we are seeing today is simply the response of warming over 200 years ago as we exited the LIA and not man caused anything.

The moon has no atmosphere.

Obviously. Do you think that causes the surface to cool faster than an Earth desert? Why?

CO2 back radiation is questionable as it is not seen or empirically observed in our atmosphere.

H2O back radiation you agree with but you're still going with "photons from CO2 won't radiate downward"?

 

[mamooth]

Venus is 210 deg C in the sun and -200 deg C in the night..

Venus is almost as hot on the night side as the day side during its two-month-long nights. That's because of the greenhouse effect holding in the heat, and the constant high winds circling the planet, always bringing heat from the day side to the night side.

That is, Billy was totally clueless, again. This time, it was an especially stupid screw up. CO2 freezes out at -57C at 1 atmosphere partial pressure. It would freeze out at a higher temperature under the much higher partial pressure of Venus. Billy, can you show us the frozen CO2 on the night side of Venus?

This is where now, instead of admitting to a screwup, Billy completely melts down. Prepare for the hilarity of it. (One guess, he was quoting cloud top temperatures, which have little to do with surface temperatures.)

 

[Crick]

CO2 back radiation is questionable as it is not seen or empirically observed in our atmosphere.

Spectrum of greenhouse radiation by direct observation. Evans 2006

The system itself has not responded to increased CO2 levels and what they expected to see.

The empirical evidence suggests that CO2 is a follower of temp by about 200-800 years not a driver of it. What we are seeing today is simply the response of warming over 200 years ago as we exited the LIA and not man caused anything.

Shakun et al 2014

 

[Markle]

How much is Recurrent Energy receiving in government subsidies, tax credits or whatever?

Lowest price yet for solar?
I have a hard time believing that’s the lowest solar power has gone for anywhere in the world, but it may be the lowest in the US if you remove state subsidies from other projects.

We reported last February on a PPA in New Mexico in which First Solar was selling electricity for 5.8¢/kWh. That’s the lowest I think I have seen. However, GTM Solar Analyst Cory Honeyman says that “new PPAs signed in North Carolina fetched prices for less than 7 cents per kilowatt-hour.” The notable difference in the New Mexico and North Carolina projects, as implied above — they took advantage of in-state subsidies for solar. That’s not the story with this Texas deal.

SunEdison project beat natural gas, coal, and nuclear on price
If you removed the ITC (a federal tax credit for solar), the cost would probably be about 8¢/kWh. Still, that’s not bad. Austin Energy’s 30-year LCOE estimate for natural gas was 7¢/kWh, while the estimate for coal clocked in at 10¢/kWh and the estimate for nuclear at 13¢/kWh.

Only wind — 2.8¢/kWh to 3.8¢/kWh — was lower.

Solar Less Than 5¢/kWh In Austin, Texas! (Cheaper Than Natural Gas, Coal, & Nuclear)

Still nothing from you, or anyone else regarding how much in taxpayer subsidies, tax credits or whatever?

World's Largest Solar Plant Sets Itself on Fire
Improperly aligned mirrors redirected the sun's rays at the wrong spot.
By Eric Limer
May 20, 2016

• 
  The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, a concentrated solar thermal in California and the world's largest solar thermal power station, suffered a small fire on one of its three boiler towers Thursday, according to the Associated Press. The fire caused the boiler tower to be shut down while firefighters ascended 300 feet to deal with the blaze, leaving the plant at one third power since another tower is already down for maintenance.

World's Largest Solar Plant Sets Itself on Fire

 

[ScienceRocks]

How much is Recurrent Energy receiving in government subsidies, tax credits or whatever?

Lowest price yet for solar?
I have a hard time believing that’s the lowest solar power has gone for anywhere in the world, but it may be the lowest in the US if you remove state subsidies from other projects.

We reported last February on a PPA in New Mexico in which First Solar was selling electricity for 5.8¢/kWh. That’s the lowest I think I have seen. However, GTM Solar Analyst Cory Honeyman says that “new PPAs signed in North Carolina fetched prices for less than 7 cents per kilowatt-hour.” The notable difference in the New Mexico and North Carolina projects, as implied above — they took advantage of in-state subsidies for solar. That’s not the story with this Texas deal.

SunEdison project beat natural gas, coal, and nuclear on price
If you removed the ITC (a federal tax credit for solar), the cost would probably be about 8¢/kWh. Still, that’s not bad. Austin Energy’s 30-year LCOE estimate for natural gas was 7¢/kWh, while the estimate for coal clocked in at 10¢/kWh and the estimate for nuclear at 13¢/kWh.

Only wind — 2.8¢/kWh to 3.8¢/kWh — was lower.

Solar Less Than 5¢/kWh In Austin, Texas! (Cheaper Than Natural Gas, Coal, & Nuclear)

Still nothing from you, or anyone else regarding how much in taxpayer subsidies, tax credits or whatever?

World's Largest Solar Plant Sets Itself on Fire
Improperly aligned mirrors redirected the sun's rays at the wrong spot.
By Eric Limer
May 20, 2016

• 
  The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, a concentrated solar thermal in California and the world's largest solar thermal power station, suffered a small fire on one of its three boiler towers Thursday, according to the Associated Press. The fire caused the boiler tower to be shut down while firefighters ascended 300 feet to deal with the blaze, leaving the plant at one third power since another tower is already down for maintenance.

World's Largest Solar Plant Sets Itself on Fire

Human error. Happens! But either way solar is taking over our energy installation big time and most of them are doing it by the private sector. Of course, the idiot that lives in 1791 would love to stop funding energy infrastructure and live in such piss poor conditions since he hates modern civilization with a passion.

 

[Markle]

Human error. Happens! But either way solar is taking over our energy installation big time and most of them are doing it by the private sector. Of course, the idiot that lives in 1791 would love to stop funding energy infrastructure and live in such piss poor conditions since he hates modern civilization with a passion.

Don't have a clue as to the significance of the date do you? And still, you're proud to vividly demonstrate your ignorance. Good for you!

 

[Old Rocks]

Laws of probability - random distribution

A molecule can emit in a range of 360x360

That same molecule at 5 meters can radiate towards another round object (earth) 80x80

The calculations are a bit more complex than above but this photo kind of gives you a glimpse of how it is derived. As height increases the area of emittance where it could possibly contact earths surface diminishes. Then we add in how many other molecules it will encounter and their heights... The numbers become astronomically high that a surface emitted and then atmosphere re-emitted photon will actually return to earth.

As height increases the area of emittance where it could possibly contact earths surface diminishes.

Diminishes, slowly, yet still far, far higher than 0% chance. You see your error now?

But your missing the other matter in our atmosphere... as that height increases, that other mass increases also..

Oh my. OK, Silly Billy, elucidate. Do you mean the atmosphere becomes denser, therefore heavier as you get further from sea level? Or do you mean that the atmosphere changes it's mix of elements as you get higher, and the heavier elements are found at the higher levels? Come on, Silly Billy, this ought to be very educational.

 

[Old Rocks]

This point - counterpoint dialog between Tod and Billy Bob is entertaining. Like watching a snake eat a mouse. Will the Law of Thermal Travel bring Tod to his knees? I sit on the edge of my seat wondering who is going to get the upper hand.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

'
I know how difficult it is for most people to understand global heating and the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect. Over the years, I went from fairly easy acceptance of the scientific research, then a period of critical uncertainty as I gained some understanding of the complexity of the problem, and then firm acceptance of anthropogenic global warming as I realized how inevitable it was under the present inputs into the global system.

It is perhaps useful to compare the situation on Earth with our so-called "sister planet", Venus, almost the same size as Earth but with an atmosphere 96.5% carbon dioxide, using the Ideal Gas Law.

Reduced to basic form, the Ideal Gas Law is expressed as:

PV = NkT, where

P = pressure, V = volume, N = number of particles in the volume, k = Boltzmann's Constant, and T = temperature.

For Earth, the average pressure at planetary surface is 101.3 kilopascals or 101 300 Joules of energy per cubic metre.

The surface density of the atmosphere is 1.225 kilogrammes per cubic metre. The atmosphere consists mainly of diatomic molecules of nitrogen and oxygen -- 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen.

The average molecular mass of these is 28.8 -- giving the average molecule a mass of 4.820 x 10^-26 kg. Dividing 1.225 kg by 4.820 kg, one arrives at 2.541 x 10^25 particles per cubic metre.

Boltzmann's Constant = 1.381 x 10^-23 Joules per degree Kelvin.

Dividing PV by the particle number and Boltzmann's Constant, we get a temperature of 288 K, or in more familiar terms, 15 degrees Celsius.

This is very close to the measured surface temperature of the Earth, but it is not precise. Actually, in the absence of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, the temperature would be at or below the freezing point of water, and the oceans would be a solid block of ice.

The main problem in using the Ideal Gas Law for the Earth is that the Earth is not a good approximation to a thermodynamic ideal "black body".

The situation is much different when one turns to the planet Venus, which much more closely approximates an ideal black body. Its atmosphere is quite uniform and well mixed, and its cloud cover is also uniform. Venus has the highest albedo (reflectivity) of all the planets in the Solar System -- it immediately reflects fully 70% of all the solar radiation which it receives. Only 30% of solar radiation contributes to warming the planet. The situation is exactly reversed for the planet Earth. The Earth has an albedo of only 30%, and 70% of incident radiation is absorbed by our planet. It is important to remember these facts.

The surface pressure of Venus is 92 times that of the Earth -- a pressure of 9 319 600 Joules per cubic metre.

The surface density of the Venusian atmosphere is 53 times that of the Earth -- 65 kg per cubic metre. Dividing 65 kg by the mass of a carbon dioxide -- 7.310 x 10^-26 kg -- gives the particle number per cubic metre: 8.90 x 10^26.

Again, dividing PV by the particle number and Boltzmann's Constant gives a temperature of 482.9 K, or 209.7 degrees Celsius.

That is more than 300 K less than the measured surface temperature of 787 K (514 degrees Celsius).

The reason Venus is so much hotter than one would calculate by pressure alone IS BECAUSE OF THE CARBON DIOXIDE GREENHOUSE EFFECT!!!

Naturally, the first thing a global warming Denialist would think of is that Venus is a third closer to the Sun than the Earth is, receiving a little more than twice the radiation as the Earth does, and so would of course be warmer.
This plausible chain of thought is totally fallacious!!

Remember, Venus has an albedo of 70%!

Believe it or not, Venus absorbs less radiation from the Sun than the Earth does!
.

You make one very wild assumption. One you can never hope to prove.. That you use the word "denialist" tips your hat at having nothing in the realm of empirical evidence. You have a handle on the gas laws but you lack any credibility on what CO2 does in either atmosphere. You have conjecture and that is all. More importantly, your models, that you rely on as if they were empirical evidence, fail all predictive attempts with the real world showing us you don't know how or why the system works.

Earths albedo varies with season and water content. Venus is 210 deg C in the sun and -200 deg C in the night.. Your magical CO2 cant seem to hold the heat in...

Ye Gods and little fishes. Silly Billy, you pull more nonsense out of your ass than anyone on this board.

"Earths albedo varies with season and water content. Venus is 210 deg C in the sun and -200 deg C in the night.. Your magical CO2 cant seem to hold the heat in."

Says Silly Billy. Here is what the facts are.

Temperature on Venus

The universe’s hottest planet, Venus, is so unbearably hot that very few things could survive on this planet. Venus’s temperature is around 460 degrees Celsius most of the time, which is about an average of 863 degrees Fahrenheit. Although Venus is very similar to Earth, in geophysical terms, it has no similarities whatsoever regarding temperature. On Venus, the temperature is set to around 460 degrees whether it is day or night at any section of the planet. The funny thing is that Venus reaches this extreme temperature even though it is not the closest planet to the sun. So, why and how does Venus get its extreme heat? The planet’s burning temperatures are greatly a result of the planet’s atmosphere. The planet’s atmosphere is made up of thick yellow clouds that cover up the planet’s surface. Similar to the moon, Venus is a plain rock. The poisonous atmosphere would instantly kill off any breathing creature that would dare enter the planet. Also, the greenhouse effect is strongest in Venus out of all the planets. This intense heat also comes from the clouds that make Venus’s surface invisible. These clouds are mostly made up of carbon dioxide, which makes a greenhouse effect that traps the Sun’s heat. Therefore, it is impossible for the planet to cool down at all. Furthermore, the fact that Venus’s temperature stays the same around the whole planet and at all times is due to the planet having very little axial tilt. Evidently, water and water vapor are almost impossible to find on Venus due to its intensely high surface temperature.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, message 930 also explains the IR gun. It measures it's own temperature, then measures how much radiation it is gaining or losing to the object it is pointing at, and calculates the temperature difference. The portion of radiation that cancels out is still happening in both directions but it doesn't cause a gain or loss. It does however exchange momentum and increase entropy.

Energy exchange is always a gross one way transfer...not net...it's nice that you have a chart where you can visualize your imagination..and have one more way to fool yourself.....unfortunately a chart is all you will ever have....net energy transfer has never been observed in the history of the universe.

Gross means tallying up all the individual components. Net means the surplus and final direction.

I am perfectly aware of what gross and net mean...energy exchange is a one way process...two way energy exchange has never been observed...in the history of the universe...

 

[SSDD]

Energy exchange is always a gross one way transfer...

Can you cite a source that demonstrates how EM radiation from a colder object cannot strike a hotter object?

Nothing more than the second law of thermodynamics.... 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.

It is well known that radiation can be exchanged by bodies at any temperature and the net energy is from the hotter to the colder. There is nothing to impede that. I asked you to cite a source that radiation is one way. I can cite many sources that radiation is two way.

Again..refer to the second law of thermodynamics...radiation is energy and energy does not move spontaneously from a low temperature object to a high temperature object...your sources are in opposition to the second law of thermodynamics...sorry, but they must be wrong..