Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

[ding]

I have shown you irrefutable evidence that CO2 will cause warming on multiple occasions. Each time you complain that the vertical scale is not marked in degrees of temperature. The problem here is not a lack of evidence, it's your inability to understand the evidence that's been put before you.

Can you show me this irrefutable evidence that CO2 will cause warming?

 

[Crick]

Yes

 

[ding]

Yes

That doesn't look like irrefutable evidence to me. How does this prove that the warming we are experiencing which is still well below the peak temperatures of the previous interglacials is caused by CO2? It doesn't, jackass.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yes

That doesn't look like irrefutable evidence to me. How does this prove that the warming we are experiencing which is still well below the peak temperatures of the previous interglacials is caused by CO2? It doesn't, jackass.

Crick thinks a bandpass graph is proof.. He doesn't have a damn clue.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Thermodynamics is a series of physical laws...and the second one states that neither heat nor energy EVER move spontaneously from cool to warm.

That's right thermodynamics is a series of laws. Yes, neither heat nor thermal energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm objects.

Neither heat, nor any sort of energy...the second law is universal...it applies to all sorts of energy whether it be stored potential energy created by holding a rock up above the ground or IR radiation emitted from a CO2 molecule...

poor SSDD has some serious misconceptions about physics. basic laws are fundamental but they are still only single factors that need to be taken in combination with all the factors involved.

The Sun is a huge source of highly ordered energy that does work on Earth systems. Our atmosphere is only present because of stored solar energy that is constantly being refreshed to replace energy lost to space.

The radiation produced by the atmosphere (some of which returns to the surface) comes directly and indirectly from the Sun. It is not just an object at a defined temperature. Likewise the surface is also producing radiation from energy received directly and indirectly provided by the Sun.

Both the surface and the atmosphere produce radiation according to their temperature and emissivity. All the time, in all directions. If the surface is warmer than the atmosphere then heat (net energy) moves towards the air. If the atmosphere is warmer than the surface then heat moves towards the surface, but the radiation is always there. No exceptions, no throttling down, no restricted directions.

There is nothing special about the temperature of any object or environment. Sometimes they are a heat source, sometimes they absorb heat. But they always radiate according to their temperature and emissivity. Heat moves to the cooler object whether the differential is 50C-40C, or 20C-10C.

The part that seems to confuse most people is when the radiation from each object is considered individually. An object at 16C radiates about 400W, 15C at 395W, 17C at 405W. The 16C object would be losing 5W to the 15W object, gaining 5W from the 17C object. As long as any of the objects remain at their original temperature their radiation output remains the same.

I do not necessarily agree with Trenberth's numbers but it is illustrative. The Sun adds ~160W to the surface directly
(and an unknown amount of energy has already been stored in the atmosphere). But the surface radiates at ~ 400W. The deficit must be made up from somewhere. It comes from radiation returning from the atmosphere. Trenberth says that ~60W is radiated away, ~100W is carried upwards by the water cycle, which balances out the ~160W received from the Sun. We can argue the numbers endlessly but the general explanation is correct. The surface cannot fully shed energy by radiation because the temperature differential between the surface and atmosphere is much smaller than surface directly to space. The atmosphere is warm because it absorbs a considerable fraction of the surface radiation (indirect sunlight energy).

Trenbreths numbers are so bad that no one uses them... Fractional change and evaporation are the keys to why AGW is a farce.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Love this liberal common core approach.. No wonder so many have been duped by this scam. MODELS ARE NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN FANTASY!

That's right, models are not empirical evidence of anything. Who has been duped by saying that? Do you think I said that? Where? Which liberals have said that?

You take the IPCC as gospel when their whole premise is built upon models which have zero predictive powers and fail empirical evidence review. You, like Crick and mamooth all believe in fantasy modeling..

 

[Wuwei]

Love this liberal common core approach.. No wonder so many have been duped by this scam. MODELS ARE NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN FANTASY!

That's right, models are not empirical evidence of anything. Who has been duped by saying that? Do you think I said that? Where? Which liberals have said that?

You take the IPCC as gospel when their whole premise is built upon models which have zero predictive powers and fail empirical evidence review. You, like Crick and mamooth all believe in fantasy modeling..

I have not read any of the IPCC documents; I have no idea what their models are, let alone take it as gospel. In fact I agree with you that models are not empirical evidence of anything.
Your mind has gone way off track of what I said earlier. I was responding to what you said:

Proof is absolutely needed and OBSERVED in the real world..It is the basis of REAL science..

I will say it again: Hard science can never prove anything, it can only model the physical concepts. If you know anything at all about science, you should know this.

 

[jc456]

I don't give a shit about the spelling of common verbiage.

In jc's case, he was giving an obscure name without explanation or context. Google gave an optional spelling for a company that apparently specializes in decision algorithms.

Is that what he meant to reference? Who knows. jc didn't specifically state much of anything.

Ian I gave a name and incorrectly hit 'q' instead of 'g' you found the company right? You have turned into one sad fk off. So now you believe in AGW I suppose. You make me laugh

 

[jc456]

A theory that lacks supporting evidence is generally, more properly, referred to as a hypothesis."

Thank you. Thermodynamics as of today has a plethora of supporting evidence, therefore it is not a hypothesis.

Thermodynamics is a series of physical laws...and the second one states that neither heat nor energy EVER move spontaneously from cool to warm.

But they said it does so god damnit therefore it does! They don't need no stinking observation

 

[Crick]

Yes

That doesn't look like irrefutable evidence to me. How does this prove that the warming we are experiencing which is still well below the peak temperatures of the previous interglacials is caused by CO2? It doesn't, jackass.

Crick thinks a bandpass graph is proof.. He doesn't have a damn clue.

Then, Mr Engineer and Mr Atmospheric Physicist, why don't you tell us what DOES happen to the IR energy this shows CO2 to be absorbing and re-emitting.

 

[Wuwei]

and the second one states that neither heat nor energy EVER move spontaneously from cool to warm.

The second law does not state that. You have no basis for that. No scientist would ever say that. You are making that up. Simply capitalizing EVER does not make that true.

 

[SSDD]

The second law does not state that. You have no basis for that. No scientist would ever say that. You are making that up. Simply capitalizing EVER does not make that true.

Of course it does....once more...from the physics department at Georgia State:

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. This precludes a perfect refrigerator The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles.

I would say categorically that the physics department at GSU knows a bit more about the topic than you and this is from their hyper physics site.

Now wuwei, how about you provide us with some comic relief and tell us that this only applies to refrigerators....tell us again how it is refrigerator physics and doesn't apply to anything but refrigerators....or heat pumps....or air conditioners

And while you are at it, tell us why they say that the above physical law PRECLUDES a perfect refrigerator rather than stating that it only applies to refrigerators....

Of all the things you have said on this board...making the claim that that statement only applied to refrigerators was perhaps the silliest.

 

[SSDD]

poor SSDD has some serious misconceptions about physics. basic laws are fundamental but they are still only single factors that need to be taken in combination with all the factors involved.

No ian....I am not laboring under any misconceptions...

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.

That is a very straight forward, unambiguous statement. It is really not possible for someone to misunderstand it unless they do so willfully. Now I know that you believe in a different second law of thermodynamics than that stated above, but at present, the statement above represents the actual second law. If you have some idea about the second law other than that straight forward, unambiguous statement above, then I am afraid that alas, it is you who is laboring under a misconception....

But you watch the news and be sure to let me know when they rewrite the second law to reflect your belief...it will surely be a newsworthy event.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

and the second one states that neither heat nor energy EVER move spontaneously from cool to warm.

The second law does not state that. You have no basis for that. No scientist would ever say that. You are making that up. Simply capitalizing EVER does not make that true.

What do you think the Second Law states

 

[SSDD]

[


SSDD is refusing to acknowledge all the blackbody experiments done in the past to formulate the basic Laws and repeated endlessly in university physics classes. Even though he linked up to some of them when he found a phrase used that seemed to support his position (out of context).

If you are referring to the S-B law...again,, you are laboring under a misconception...and we have already been through this...and you lost....objects radiate in all directions according to their temperature and area IF THEY ARE IN A VACUUM....take them out of the vacuum and put them in the presence of other matter and they radiate according to their area and the difference between their own temperature and the temperature of their surroundings.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I have shown you irrefutable evidence that CO2 will cause warming on multiple occasions. Each time you complain that the vertical scale is not marked in degrees of temperature. The problem here is not a lack of evidence, it's your inability to understand the evidence that's been put before you.

Can you show me this irrefutable evidence that CO2 will cause warming?

Here's where Crick posts the chart with no temperature axis

 

[SSDD]

Yep, but you don't grasp the context.

Of course I do...you are the one claiming that you can't place a warm rock in the snow without violating the laws of thermodynamics.

If you place the warm rock in the snow, energy will flow from the rock to the warm snow but no energy will flow from the snow to the rock...

It definitely is an idiotic analogy, and it comes from your ideas.

It comes from your abject misunderstanding of what I said....again, placing a warm rock in the snow doesn't violate any law of thermodynamics...now if you have the idea that energy from the snow will flow into the rock, then you are the victim of a terrible misunderstanding...placing the rock in the snow is a product of the work you did to move it there..

Are you saying you don't believe the text of those references? Those references are the result of many observable, measurable, testable experiments.

And not a single observation of energy moving spontaneously in two directions...

 

[SSDD]

Yes

That doesn't look like irrefutable evidence to me. How does this prove that the warming we are experiencing which is still well below the peak temperatures of the previous interglacials is caused by CO2? It doesn't, jackass.

every time he posts that graph I remind him that he failed to post the emission graph for those molecules. He somehow thinks that absorption and emission equals warming.

 

[SSDD]

Then, Mr Engineer and Mr Atmospheric Physicist, why don't you tell us what DOES happen to the IR energy this shows CO2 to be absorbing and re-emitting.

The bulk of it never gets re-emitted...it gets passed along to an oxygen or nitrogen molecule via convection. Here...again...I don't expect the explanation to make any more sense to you this time than it has any of the other times but never let it be said that I didn't try to explain the real world to you.

Q: What is the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom (usually N2) out in the open atmosphere?

A: About 1 nanosecond

Q: Can you tell me how many times longer the mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is than the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom?

A: The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is around 1 second....how much longer is that than the mean time between molecular collisions through which unexcited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom...why its about a billion times as long.

Q: Can you tell me what the ramifications of the difference between those times is for the idea of CO2 molecules absorbing and emitting IR photons in all directions?

A: Well, since the mean time between molecular collisions is so much shorter than the decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon, the CO2 molecule will transfer its energy to another atom or molecule 99.9999999% of the time... This means that the popular mental image of a CO2 molecules emitting IR photons off in all directions which is the basis for the AGW hypothesis only happens once in every billion energy exchanges...Direct energy exchange between the CO2 and another atom or molecule happens the other 999,999,999 times. In other words; insofar as moving energy out of the atmosphere, convection rules....radiation is a bit player of such minute proportions that it hardly rates mention.

 

[SSDD]

and the second one states that neither heat nor energy EVER move spontaneously from cool to warm.

The second law does not state that. You have no basis for that. No scientist would ever say that. You are making that up. Simply capitalizing EVER does not make that true.

What do you think the Second Law states

Apparently he thinks it states that energy can flow from cool to warm if it damned well wants to.