seven stats on climate change

[SSDD]

Yet another non answer...are you saying that the SB law doesn't play a part in the radiative greenhouse effect equations....
And I'm still waiting to hear about why back radiation isn't possible in a vacuum.

The greenhouse effect is quantified by the emissivity value in SB ...
The causitive agent in back radiation is the fluid medium ...

And the non answers roll on.

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
Albert Einstein

He probably should gave added “or just parroting what you heard somewhere Lise and probably what fooled you.

any presence of the SB law in the calculations suggesting back radiation are a misuse of the SB law.

and about your claim that back radiation is not possible in a vacuum...still waiting for an explanation of why that might be. Simply admitting that using misspoke is a valid and rational answer.

There's a thread pinned to the top of the Environment Forum that has numerous simple explanations ... many of which are directed specifically toward you ... through it all, you've rejected the continuous field nature of electromagnetism ... Maxwell, J.C.; A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field; Proceedings of the Royal Society; 1865 ... only matter produces this field, and by definition a vacuum is the lack of matter ... there's no field in a vacuum to redirect the energy back to it's source ... whereas the atmosphere is of matter, and generates this field and allows for back radiation to occur ... force is equal to mass times acceleration whether you believe it or not ...

So easily fooled. M as well was obviously spe as long to theoretical perfect vaccum perfectly devoid of matter...guess you didn't notice that there was matter present in the vaccum chamber of the experiment?

 

[ReinyDays]

So easily fooled. M as well was obviously spe as long to theoretical perfect vaccum perfectly devoid of matter...guess you didn't notice that there was matter present in the vaccum chamber of the experiment?

Force equals mass times acceleration ... for one millionth the mass, we have one millionth the force, for the same acceleration ... one millionth the back radiation, did we scale our thermometer to a millionth of a degree? ...

For the record: Our idealized perfect blackbody does radiate into a perfect vacuum devoid of matter ... sometimes I don't think you appreciate that fact well enough ...

 

[Jitss617]

 

[ReinyDays]

View attachment 302009

Padding your numbers for this month's top poster? ... it would be awful if you had to give up your princess crown ...

 

[SSDD]

So easily fooled. M as well was obviously spe as long to theoretical perfect vaccum perfectly devoid of matter...guess you didn't notice that there was matter present in the vaccum chamber of the experiment?

Force equals mass times acceleration ... for one millionth the mass, we have one millionth the force, for the same acceleration ... one millionth the back radiation, did we scale our thermometer to a millionth of a degree? ...

So now you are going to try to equate back radiation with work? Can work not be done in a vacuum either. I suppose in your mind that mades some sort of sense...or maybe it did till you actually wrote it down...congratulations on the epic fail.

It is just that sort of mewling attempt at making unreality real that flacalten opened up the denier thread...I suppose he was just embarrassed at the complete inability of you believers (and himself) to offer up anything like a rational, reality based defense of said beliefs. The thread its self is nothing less than a bald faced admission of defeat. You have invested so much faith in unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models that you have come to accept them as real and actually try to apply them to reality and reality slaps the theoretical explanations down...

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240For the record: Our idealized perfect blackbody does radiate into a perfect vacuum devoid of matter ... sometimes I don't think you appreciate that fact well enough ...[/QUOTE]

For the record, you should at least try to differentiate between what is reality and what is unobservable, untestable, and unmeasurable...and stop grasping at such feeble straws.

 

[ReinyDays]

This is what's observed, so it's been tested and measured ...

 

[Wuwei]

You can predict the temperature here, and on any other planet in the solar system with the incoming solar radiation and the ideal gas laws...you can only predict the temperature of the earth with the greenhouse gas hypothesis and then only if you apply a made up and constantly changing fudge factor.

The ideal gas law and the gravitation effect can only determine the lapse rate, which is a slope. The insolation is not enough to determine the temperature at the surface of any planet. You need to consider the atmospheric composition of GHGs and the total energy absorbed in the atmosphere and on the surface of the planet. We already went through that here: Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

.

 

[Yarddog]

In this link, there are seven statistics that demonstrate that we are already experiencing effects from AGW.

7 Numbers Show How Dire Climate Change Got This Decade | HuffPost

Too bad our President & his followers are too stupid to acknowledge its existence let alone take action.

Republicans are sacrificing their children's future to bow down to their orange god.

Just relax and enjoy an IguanaPOP, were doing better than all the other large countries when it comes to pollution.... and Co2. Any policy we push through in the next five years would have ZERO effect on what China and India are doing right now

 

[SSDD]

This is what's observed, so it's been tested and measured ...

Observation from above the atmosphere...is back radiation now radiation going into space? So CO2 absorbs and emits radiation....who ever said it didn't? Clearly none of that radiation being absorbed and emitted is being trapped as there is no upper tropospheric hot spot.....which would be the inevitable and inescapable result of energy being "trapped".

In addition, the amount of IR escaping into space is increasing...not decreasing which would be another inescapable effect of energy being "trapped" in the atmosphere.

I guess when you believe in fantasy, all manner of things seem make sense...particularly if they are illustrated in bright, primary colors...

 

[SSDD]

You can predict the temperature here, and on any other planet in the solar system with the incoming solar radiation and the ideal gas laws...you can only predict the temperature of the earth with the greenhouse gas hypothesis and then only if you apply a made up and constantly changing fudge factor.

The ideal gas law and the gravitation effect can only determine the lapse rate, which is a slope. The insolation is not enough to determine the temperature at the surface of any planet. You need to consider the atmospheric composition of GHGs and the total energy absorbed in the atmosphere and on the surface of the planet. We already went through that here: Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

.

So you like to say.....except there are several gas giants out there in the solar system with little to no greenhouse gasses in their atmosphere, whose pressure induced high temperatures say that you don't know what you are talking about.

Get over being fooled and look at reality if you can bear it....

 

[Wuwei]

So you like to say.....except there are several gas giants out there in the solar system with little to no greenhouse gasses in their atmosphere, whose pressure induced high temperatures say that you don't know what you are talking about.

Get over being fooled and look at reality if you can bear it....

You misunderstood me. It is certainly true that gravitational pressure causes the temperature to increase linearly with lower altitude. I'm not arguing against that. But that alone is not enough to predict what the temperature might be at the solid surface. Gas giant's don't have a known "surface".

I'm talking about Venus or earth. As I said before, for those planets you need to consider the atmospheric composition of GHGs and the total energy absorbed in the atmosphere and on the surface of the planet in order to understand the surface temperature.

We already went through that here: Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.
.

 

[SSDD]

So you like to say.....except there are several gas giants out there in the solar system with little to no greenhouse gasses in their atmosphere, whose pressure induced high temperatures say that you don't know what you are talking about.

Get over being fooled and look at reality if you can bear it....

You misunderstood me. It is certainly true that gravitational pressure causes the temperature to increase linearly with lower altitude. I'm not arguing against that. But that alone is not enough to predict what the temperature might be at the solid surface. Gas giant's don't have a known "surface".

I'm talking about Venus or earth. As I said before, for those planets you need to consider the atmospheric composition of GHGs and the total energy absorbed in the atmosphere and on the surface of the planet in order to understand the surface temperature.

We already went through that here: Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.
.

And yet the ideal gas laws plus incoming solar accurately predict the temperature of Venus and earth...so clearly that alone is enough to predict the temperature since it is what determines the temperature. Once again...the greenhouse effect hypothesis predicts that Venus will be 54 degrees warmer than earth because 18 doubling of CO2 would give us the same concentration of CO2 as Venus ant it says that the temperature increases 3 degrees for every doubling. What a laugh...and you believe that quackery.

 

[Wuwei]

And yet the ideal gas laws plus incoming solar accurately predict the temperature of Venus and earth...so clearly that alone is enough to predict the temperature since it is what determines the temperature.

No it doesn't. The earth is dynamically much more complex than that.

Once again...the greenhouse effect hypothesis predicts that Venus will be 54 degrees warmer than earth because 18 doubling of CO2 would give us the same concentration of CO2 as Venus ant it says that the temperature increases 3 degrees for every doubling. What a laugh...and you believe that quackery.

No I don't believe that quackery. Comparing the atmospheric effects of Venus and Earth like that is not valid physics. It's just juggling numbers naively.

.

 

[SSDD]

No it doesn't. The earth is dynamically much more complex than that.

And yet...it does.. The fact is inescapable... you can make all the appeals to complexity you like, but the fact remains that one only needs to know how much solar radiation is coming in and the ideal gas laws to accurately predict the temperature here...or on any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and presumable, any planet with an atmosphere...anywhere.

No I don't believe that quackery. Comparing the atmospheric effects of Venus and Earth like that is not valid physics. It's just juggling numbers naively.

.

Of course you do..and you have a whole litany of other quackery that you believe as well..

And Occam says that the simplest answer is probably the right answer...the simplest answer gives you a pretty accurate prediction...the other answer doesn't even get close unless you toss in an ad hoc fudge factor.....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No it doesn't. The earth is dynamically much more complex than that.

And yet...it does.. The fact is inescapable... you can make all the appeals to complexity you like, but the fact remains that one only needs to know how much solar radiation is coming in and the ideal gas laws to accurately predict the temperature here...or on any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and presumable, any planet with an atmosphere...anywhere.

No I don't believe that quackery. Comparing the atmospheric effects of Venus and Earth like that is not valid physics. It's just juggling numbers naively.

.

Of course you do..and you have a whole litany of other quackery that you believe as well..

And Occam says that the simplest answer is probably the right answer...the simplest answer gives you a pretty accurate prediction...the other answer doesn't even get close unless you toss in an ad hoc fudge factor.....

one only needs to know how much solar radiation is coming in and the ideal gas laws to accurately predict the temperature here...

Right, because the amount of GHGs doesn't change a thing...…..LOL!

 

[ReinyDays]

And yet...it does.. The fact is inescapable... you can make all the appeals to complexity you like, but the fact remains that one only needs to know how much solar radiation is coming in and the ideal gas laws to accurately predict the temperature here...or on any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and presumable, any planet with an atmosphere...anywhere.

PV = nRT where P = pressure, V = volume, n = mass (in moles), R = ideal gas constant, and T = temperature

If we are to use this equation to solve for temperature, we'll need a value for volume ... what is the volume of Earth's atmosphere? ... what is the volume of the Jovian atmosphere? ...

 

[Wuwei]

No it doesn't. The earth is dynamically much more complex than that.

And yet...it does.. The fact is inescapable... you can make all the appeals to complexity you like, but the fact remains that one only needs to know how much solar radiation is coming in and the ideal gas laws to accurately predict the temperature here...or on any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and presumable, any planet with an atmosphere...anywhere.

No I don't believe that quackery. Comparing the atmospheric effects of Venus and Earth like that is not valid physics. It's just juggling numbers naively.

Of course you do..and you have a whole litany of other quackery that you believe as well..

And Occam says that the simplest answer is probably the right answer...the simplest answer gives you a pretty accurate prediction...the other answer doesn't even get close unless you toss in an ad hoc fudge factor.....

Yes, I remember. One of your references had four fudge factors with no science explanation here:
Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.
Another reference you gave said the surface temperature was "baked in".

If those two references aren't quackery I don't know what is. The problem is that you deny the basic laws of physics and substitute your own, which are self contradictory.

.

 

[ReinyDays]

If those two references aren't quackery I don't know what is. The problem is that you deny the basic laws of physics and substitute your own, which are self contradictory.

Bullshit ... he's never substituted any basic law, not once has he even even tried to pronounce his own theory ... he speaks from a position of no basic laws ... it's all willy-nilly with his claims ... it just has to be opposite what he's being told ... watch:

"The sky is yellow and the sun is blue"

 

[SSDD]

one only needs to know how much solar radiation is coming in and the ideal gas laws to accurately predict the temperature here...

Right, because the amount of GHGs doesn't change a thing...…..LOL!

Exactly...GHG's other than water vapor don't change a thing other than the total mass of the atmosphere.

 

[SSDD]

And yet...it does.. The fact is inescapable... you can make all the appeals to complexity you like, but the fact remains that one only needs to know how much solar radiation is coming in and the ideal gas laws to accurately predict the temperature here...or on any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and presumable, any planet with an atmosphere...anywhere.

PV = nRT where P = pressure, V = volume, n = mass (in moles), R = ideal gas constant, and T = temperature

If we are to use this equation to solve for temperature, we'll need a value for volume ... what is the volume of Earth's atmosphere? ... what is the volume of the Jovian atmosphere? ...

Interesting...you accept hokey atmospheric math which requires that you assign an area to the atmosphere, but you don't think we know the volume of the atmosphere? It may come as a surprise to you, but the US standard atmosphere, which comes pretty close to predicting the temperature here relies entirely on the ideal gas laws...you think they might have calculated the volume of the earth in order to do the math?

All you really need do is visit the NASA planetary fact sheet..

Planetary Fact Sheet

This one is right up there with the idea that back radiation, if there were such a thing, couldn't happen in a vacuum...