Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[IanC]

Sufficient? No. A basic building block? Yes.

I can agree with that. As a building block it subtracts one from the number of degrees of freedom in any atmospheric formula.

Sure. There are hundreds of them. Like speed of rotation, longer days lower average temps.

?
I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

So make it more obvious what you mean.

This thread started out with an oversimplified concept of pressure and temperature. You are bringing complexity far beyond the scope of simpler atmospheric models. Speed of rotation, longer days and more complex factors are used in short term weather prediction. Not simpler atmospheric models.

I brought them in? You brought them in and I was just acknowledging them. I would prefer to just talk about the basic concept without talking about geometry, etc of a real world system that has gradients etc due to shape, tilt etc. Averages are good enough for me at this point but the complexities are still important in the real world.

 

[SSDD]

So show us the cooling that you believe has taken place since the Industrial Revolution began pumping the atmosphere full of CO2.

You get that the temperature was already rising before the industrial revolution don't you...you know...coming out of the LIA and all...

There is a poor...no, make that a piss poor correlation between temperatures and CO2...CO2 has risen 110ppm since 1750 and we are responsible for a whopping 17ppm...

Here have a look at a new paper accepted for publication

Blockbuster Paper Finds Just 15% Of CO2 Growth Since Industrialization Is Due To Human Emissions

 

[Olde Europe]

go look up emissivity and get it through your head that if you increase the emissivity, by definition the temperature drops...not the other way around.

Absorptivity still doesn't figure in your "argument". Same Shit, Different Day.

 

[SSDD]

go look up emissivity and get it through your head that if you increase the emissivity, by definition the temperature drops...not the other way around.

Absorptivity still doesn't figure in your "argument". Same Shit, Different Day.

You don't seem to get the fact that ignorer to be an emitter, it must be an absorber as is the case with all emitters. and by definition when you increase the emissivity of an object or a system, the temperature drops... That universal fact should clue you in to your belief that adding CO2 to the atmosphere which increases its emissivity will cause warming...but it isn't, is it? Again....you are paying the intellectual price for involving yourself with glassy eyed cultists....chanting won't make the model real..it is a failure from its foundation and no amount of complexity will ever make it reflect reality.

 

[Olde Europe]

You don't seem to get the fact that in order to be an emitter, it must be an absorber as is the case with all emitters.

That's exactly what Crick and I have been trying to tell you over several dozen postings. Thanks for finally acknowledging what has been obvious to all but you. Now, how about you adjust your argument regarding temperature by including absorption as well as emission?

 

[SSDD]

You don't seem to get the fact that in order to be an emitter, it must be an absorber as is the case with all emitters.

That's exactly what Crick and I have been trying to tell you over several dozen postings. Thanks for finally acknowledging what has been obvious to all but you. Now, how about you adjust your argument regarding temperature by including absorption as well as emission?

Are you this dim?...really? All emitters are absorbers...every one of them...the only way that they can be emitters is to have the capacity to absorb...and yet, it is a universal truth that when you raise the emissivity of an object, or a system...the temperature drops. Which part of that are you having a problem with? Raise the emissivity drop the temperature of anything even though in order to raise its emissivity, you had to add an absorber/emitter...

What? Do you think CO2 is some magic substance that is alone among all the substances in the universe which can raise the emissivity of a thing and result in warming? Disassociate yourself from the glassy eyed cultists and stop chanting...a first class seat on the AGW crazy train is nothing to be proud of.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You don't seem to get the fact that in order to be an emitter, it must be an absorber as is the case with all emitters.

That's exactly what Crick and I have been trying to tell you over several dozen postings. Thanks for finally acknowledging what has been obvious to all but you. Now, how about you adjust your argument regarding temperature by including absorption as well as emission?

Are you this dim?...really? All emitters are absorbers...every one of them...the only way that they can be emitters is to have the capacity to absorb...and yet, it is a universal truth that when you raise the emissivity of an object, or a system...the temperature drops. Which part of that are you having a problem with? Raise the emissivity drop the temperature of anything even though in order to raise its emissivity, you had to add an absorber/emitter...

What? Do you think CO2 is some magic substance that is alone among all the substances in the universe which can raise the emissivity of a thing and result in warming? Disassociate yourself from the glassy eyed cultists and stop chanting...a first class seat on the AGW crazy train is nothing to be proud of.

the only way that they can be emitters is to have the capacity to absorb...and yet, it is a universal truth that when you raise the absorptivity of an object, or a system...the temperature increases.

 

[Olde Europe]

Are you this dim?...really? All emitters are absorbers...every one of them...the only way that they can be emitters is to have the capacity to absorb...and yet, it is a universal truth that when you raise the emissivity of an object, or a system...the temperature drops.

Ah, okay. Obviously, including the role of absorption into your discussion of the temperature is too much complexity.

 

[IanC]

Sufficient? No. A basic building block? Yes.

I can agree with that. As a building block it subtracts one from the number of degrees of freedom in any atmospheric formula.

Sure. There are hundreds of them. Like speed of rotation, longer days lower average temps.

?
I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

So make it more obvious what you mean.

This thread started out with an oversimplified concept of pressure and temperature. You are bringing complexity far beyond the scope of simpler atmospheric models. Speed of rotation, longer days and more complex factors are used in short term weather prediction. Not simpler atmospheric models.

Somewhere back in the discard pile you complained that the basic atmospheric principle didn't predict temps at location s poleward. That is a step beyond the basics, not using the overall average.

You have to grasp the basic before you add complexities.

Do you?

 

[SSDD]

Are you this dim?...really? All emitters are absorbers...every one of them...the only way that they can be emitters is to have the capacity to absorb...and yet, it is a universal truth that when you raise the emissivity of an object, or a system...the temperature drops.

Ah, okay. Obviously, including the role of absorption into your discussion of the temperature is too much complexity.

OK...real slow...can you name any other absorber/emitter that you can add to a system which will increase the emissivity but will not result in a temperature drop other than the magic molecule CO2?

 

[Crick]

Your "blockbuster paper" is in an "open access" journal. I'm not impressed.

 

[SSDD]

Your "blockbuster paper" is in an "open access" journal. I'm not impressed.

And yet you gobbled up that Best paper from a pay to publish journal volume 1....guess that's just how you roll...stupid all the way. I note that you have no complaint or argument other than you don't like how this one is being published but if it told you what you want to hear, then it is fine no matter where it comes from...got it.

 

[Wuwei]

I brought them in? You brought them in and I was just acknowledging them. I would prefer to just talk about the basic concept without talking about geometry, etc of a real world system that has gradients etc due to shape, tilt etc. Averages are good enough for me at this point but the complexities are still important in the real world.

That didn't make sense to me

Somewhere back in the discard pile you complained that the basic atmospheric principle didn't predict temps at location s poleward. That is a step beyond the basics, not using the overall average.

You have to grasp the basic before you add complexities.

Do you?

That clarification does make more sense.

Yes, you need to grasp the basics. If you want to think about a physics process in one column of atmosphere with average values, that is useful. However if that physics process such as the ideal gas law fails to address something as important as solar input radiation, then it is not the basics and has little value in grasping basic average atmospheric properties. The ideal gas law alone doesn't address the solar input.




.

 

[SSDD]

I brought them in? You brought them in and I was just acknowledging them. I would prefer to just talk about the basic concept without talking about geometry, etc of a real world system that has gradients etc due to shape, tilt etc. Averages are good enough for me at this point but the complexities are still important in the real world.

That didn't make sense to me

Somewhere back in the discard pile you complained that the basic atmospheric principle didn't predict temps at location s poleward. That is a step beyond the basics, not using the overall average.

You have to grasp the basic before you add complexities.

Do you?

That clarification does make more sense.

Yes, you need to grasp the basics. If you want to think about a physics process in one column of atmosphere with average values, that is useful. However if that physics process such as the ideal gas law fails to address something as important as solar input radiation, then it is not the basics and has little value in grasping basic average atmospheric properties. The ideal gas law alone doesn't address the solar input.

Using the ideal gas law does not discount solar input..had you actually looked at the temperatures the IGL predict, you would see that it predicted a lower temperature for the planets as you move closer to the sun...it predicted a temperature of 737K at the surface of venus...the actual temperature is closer to 750K....For earth the IGL predicts 288K...the actual temperature is more like 294K.... The predicted temperatures and the actual temperatures get closer as you move further from the sun and the solar input becomes less.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So show us the cooling that you believe has taken place since the Industrial Revolution began pumping the atmosphere full of CO2.

You get that the temperature was already rising before the industrial revolution don't you...you know...coming out of the LIA and all...

There is a poor...no, make that a piss poor correlation between temperatures and CO2...CO2 has risen 110ppm since 1750 and we are responsible for a whopping 17ppm...

Here have a look at a new paper accepted for publication

Blockbuster Paper Finds Just 15% Of CO2 Growth Since Industrialization Is Due To Human Emissions

"We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition, we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2 variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years."

Residency time of just 4 years... And everything except 17ppm over 150 years is naturally occurring... that DEFINITELY PUTS A KNOT IN THE AGW HYPOTHESIS.

So man is responsible for just 17ppm of our current 403ppm. How can 17ppm place us in great peril of runaway anything? Not only can CO2 not warm the oceans, it is now primarily naturally caused and the earths sinks are dealing with it in short order.

 

[polarbear]

First...there is no basics of CO2 driven warming because there is no CO2 driven warming....and no...if there were no GHG's in the atmosphere, it would be warmer by some small degree because without GHG's the emissivity of the atmosphere would be lower.

Didn't think it possible, but you still add to the vastness of your incomprehension. Without GHG's, the earth's average surface temperature would be -18°C. The 15°C we're seeing is the consequence of the greenhouse effect. You're still lacking the first hint of the beginnings of a clue.

It would be -18C without GHG? It`s back again to the easy bake oven that should not get warmer than -22 C with a 100 watt light bulb.
And you don`t have clue why it can bake cookies.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So we can Terraform Mars into a tropical Paradise by dropping a single CO2 molecule there?

Then you wonder how we know your "theory" is an epic fail

No. I wonder how you've been able to remain so incredibly ignorant.

Its ignorant because it repeats back your answer every time you're asked to show us the link between CO2 and temperature. There may be hope for you yet

 

[Crick]

"It's ignorant"? "It repeats back"? What is "it"?

 

[Crick]

Your "blockbuster paper" is in an "open access" journal. I'm not impressed.

And yet you gobbled up that Best paper from a pay to publish journal volume 1....guess that's just how you roll...stupid all the way. I note that you have no complaint or argument other than you don't like how this one is being published but if it told you what you want to hear, then it is fine no matter where it comes from...got it.

I see nothing to refute the isotopic analyses that tell us very close to 100% of the CO2 added since 1750 came from the combustion of fossil fuel.

 

[SSDD]

Your "blockbuster paper" is in an "open access" journal. I'm not impressed.

And yet you gobbled up that Best paper from a pay to publish journal volume 1....guess that's just how you roll...stupid all the way. I note that you have no complaint or argument other than you don't like how this one is being published but if it told you what you want to hear, then it is fine no matter where it comes from...got it.

I see nothing to refute the isotopic analyses that tell us very close to 100% of the CO2 added since 1750 came from the combustion of fossil fuel.

Fake news....fake science...fake engineering degree...with you its all fake all the time isn't it?