Warmest March on record according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency

[jc456]

yes, your link was spot on to that paragraph. I read through much of this article, not all of it. In summary, I conclude there is no more known today about what happens to IR rising through the atmosphere then there was one hundred years ago. Wator vapor holds heat, it's why we have a temperature humidity index. Because humid air adds stress to our breathing making a surface temperature seem much hotter then it actually is. Not CO2. There is absolutely no evidence as to what will happen with added CO2. They state that in that article. They presume and predict, but they do not have observed.

I quote: "Thus a good part of the radiation that rises from the surface is absorbed by these gases in the middle levels of the atmosphere."

what is a good part? Why can't they put a number on it? I'll tell you why, because they don't know. Does CO2 cause warming, no. Does CO2 assist the planet stay warm, yes. How much? No one can say, or at least is offering any number. How much heat does 120 PPM of CO2 add to the surface? ummm, no number. 10 PPM of CO2, ummm no number. Why? Can you answer why a number can't be provided?

The scope of the article was not quantitative. It simply was a qualitative explanation of the physics behind the phenomenon. It was not a treatise on AGW, and you shouldn't have tried to read that into it. If you read the whole article you would see that there were no numbers given anywhere. My major reason in pointing out the article is so that you might have more knowledge so that you could understand IANC better. The article clearly says why the TOA is so important in understanding the climate in general.

Your conclusion about the lack of new knowledge for 100 years is wrong. If you are interested in science history, go back to the beginning of the article. That gives the history.

I did read it, and again, there is nothing known today that wasn't known then. I read it looking for an observation. What was it, that CO2 can make water vapor? So the only water vapor is from CO2, is that what you think it's saying. I thought the oceans and other bodies of water provided water vapor? hmmmm, I missed that.

Dude, again, I trust most all of what Ian writes. he believes a little differently than me, but for the most part I believe he is in pursuit of understanding how the atmosphere works. I only care because some punk said we're all gonna die unless we stop breathing. Doh!! if I stop breathing, I ....... Therefore I ask, prove to me that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. And you know what? The answer to that is ..............................................I'm still waiting. You've provided no answer to that question. back radiation black bodies all of that crap, means nothing to me. What does is this question.... what does 120 PPM of CO2 do to temperatures? Give me a number as well. I've evolved a little for an additional request.

oh, oh, one additional thing, the thing that motivates me is when someone uses the word consensus and then can't back it up. no one on the warmer side can do that. So.....here we are. I have my views for which someone wants me to die for. huh? What kind of messed up crap is that? I say, anytime to each and everyone of those k00ks.

I read they entire article. They are very objective scientifically. But it is a very hard read. It looks like you misread some of it. If you don't agree with what it says I'm not going to argue further because the physics is too complex for a forum discussion.

Also I am not a punk kook who thinks the earth will disintegrate. I have a great skepticism of CAGW and a bit of skepticism of AGW. My attitude may change in 20 years when we see how the climate is heading. You certainly have a right to be skeptical, but I'm not going to call anyone on either side of the debate a kook unless that person has silly ideas on the science. There is enough reason to be skeptical without having to resort to ridicule or ridiculous ideas.

you know what, I completely agree with your position and you have your rights. As do I and many others on here. Because I choose not to believe does not make me a denier. I take much exception to the term and it is not the skeptic's side making the statement. So the undisciplined discussions result of a matter of name calling from the warmers with the word "denier". Starts right there and ends there.I've never heard of science or physic teachers calling individuals deniers. Nor use the word consensus until climate folk came along and one politician, and you know of him. Threats as well, jail time, killing those who don't believe. Naw, i think you need to read the warmer side.

 

[SSDD]

The only source of this unique interpretation is you?

What is to interpret? Zero is zero. Zero distance and zero time are hardly open for interpretation.

 

[Marxist]

It's pitiful that capitalists destroy the environment and attempt to shit all over a real threat.

 

[SSDD]

jc - you, and many others, simply dont understand that you are framing the question incorrectly. the Sun is warming the surface. back radiation is changing the local conditions so that less energy can leave the surface.

There is no back radiation.

does CO2 increase the atmosphere's temp? yes!

Yes it does but only in so far as it increases the mass of the atmosphere.

why do I say that? CO2 absorbs 15 micron IR which is roughly 8% of the surface's emission. that IR is completely absorbed in about 10 meters. if you add more CO2 then the extinction length decreases to less than 10 meters. therefore that 8% of the surface energy has been absorbed by less volume of air. same energy in a smaller volume translates into higher temperature.

Absorbed and immediately emitted on to space...there is no retention of heat in any greenhouse gas other than H2O

there are dozens of angles to look at this problem from. all the ones I see lead to warming from CO2.

That is because you are a warmer and can't see anything else. You couldn't acknowledge zero or less even if you were given incontrovertible evidence...even when the hoax has died, you will continue to believe in some radiative warming.

 

[SSDD]

Does the 70 degree blanket you cover yourself with at night make you feel warmer? Why?

That blanket has to do with convection...radiation does not play a part. If you want to imagine that the atmosphere is a blanket, then all so called greenhouse gas molecules, with the exception of water, are holes in that blanket.

 

[SSDD]

It's pitiful that capitalists destroy the environment and attempt to shit all over a real threat.

Polution, misuse of natural resources, poor land use...those are real threats...that wisp of CO2 that you so fear has no power to do anything other than suck the air out of the room so that actual issues which can be dealt with are shoved to the sidelines.

 

[IanC]

The only source of this unique interpretation is you?

What is to interpret? Zero is zero. Zero distance and zero time are hardly open for interpretation.

You cannot make a piece of matter go as fast as the speed of light, and you can't make light go slower than the speed of light bosons and fermions are different, and follow different rules. You cannot make direct comparisons.

But I agree that photons know where they are going, just not that they are in physical contact. Someone, Feynman perhaps, postulated that inertia is a consequence of changing the destination of photons after they were emitted but before they arrived. Hey its good sci-fi at least.

 

[SSDD]

That's because you have never asked. You are confusing me with Todd.

I don't think so...in fact, I think you two are one in the same. I didn't think toddster was the sort to employ a sock but it just goes to show you never can tell.

Suppose zero distance means contact. Of course the Lorentz transformation blow up still means that what you think about the photon contact is meaningless.

They don't "blow up"...you get infinity as an answer which is a perfectly acceptable answer in physics. What do you mean by blow up?

 

[IanC]

Does the 70 degree blanket you cover yourself with at night make you feel warmer? Why?

That blanket has to do with convection...radiation does not play a part. If you want to imagine that the atmosphere is a blanket, then all so called greenhouse gas molecules, with the exception of water, are holes in that blanket.

Can you expand that whole 'holes in the blanket' thing? It is not immediately obvious to me.

 

[SSDD]

You cannot make a piece of matter go as fast as the speed of light, and you can't make light go slower than the speed of light bosons and fermions are different, and follow different rules. You cannot make direct comparisons.

We aren't talking about matter...we are talking about photons.

But I agree that photons know where they are going, just not that they are in physical contact. Someone, Feynman perhaps, postulated that inertia is a consequence of changing the destination of photons after they were emitted but before they arrived. Hey its good sci-fi at least.

If you agree that photons experience where they are going from the time they come into existence...that must mean that they experience all possible places they can go unless you are saying that they are aimed from their point of origin....So if they experience all possible places they can go, why would they go towards a warmer body in opposition to the second law?

And again, what is the difference between zero distance and physical contact.

One other thing...I asked toddster and crick but got no answer, and I am really interested in getting someone else thought on this question. If you could see a photon from its point of origin going to some point say, half a light year away, what would you see? Would you see a particle zipping away, or would you see something more like a string instantly stretched between its point of origin and its destination which would allow it to exist at every point between its point of origin and its destination?

 

[IanC]

That's because you have never asked. You are confusing me with Todd.

I don't think so...in fact, I think you two are one in the same. I didn't think toddster was the sort to employ a sock but it just goes to show you never can tell.

Suppose zero distance means contact. Of course the Lorentz transformation blow up still means that what you think about the photon contact is meaningless.

They don't "blow up"...you get infinity as an answer which is a perfectly acceptable answer in physics. What do you mean by blow up?

Division by zero leads to a discontinuity. Lewis Carroll had a wonderful puzzle that 'proved' 1=2. It had a term that led to division by zero but well disguised. Ranges in calculus often restrict zero.

 

[SSDD]

Does the 70 degree blanket you cover yourself with at night make you feel warmer? Why?

That blanket has to do with convection...radiation does not play a part. If you want to imagine that the atmosphere is a blanket, then all so called greenhouse gas molecules, with the exception of water, are holes in that blanket.

Can you expand that whole 'holes in the blanket' thing? It is not immediately obvious to me.

OK...I'll try. In our atmosphere, oxygen and nitrogen and the other trace non "greenhouse" gasses would be the blanket, if you wan't to imagine the atmosphere as a blanket. They are the gasses that actually accumulate energy escaping from the surface via convection. The radiative gasses, serve to cool the atmosphere by radiating away that accumulating heat. The non radiative gasses are the blanket because they can only move energy out via conduction and convection. If there were no radiative gasses in the atmosphere, it would be warmer by whatever percentage of energy radiation moves out of the lower atmosphere. A few percent at best I think. So the radiative gas molecules are holes in the blanket composed of non radiative gasses.

 

[SSDD]

That's because you have never asked. You are confusing me with Todd.

I don't think so...in fact, I think you two are one in the same. I didn't think toddster was the sort to employ a sock but it just goes to show you never can tell.

Suppose zero distance means contact. Of course the Lorentz transformation blow up still means that what you think about the photon contact is meaningless.

They don't "blow up"...you get infinity as an answer which is a perfectly acceptable answer in physics. What do you mean by blow up?

Division by zero leads to a discontinuity. Lewis Carroll had a wonderful puzzle that 'proved' 1=2. It had a term that led to division by zero but well disguised. Ranges in calculus often restrict zero.

Perhaps, but the fact remains that from a photon's perspective, the distance to anywhere is zero.

 

[IanC]

You cannot make a piece of matter go as fast as the speed of light, and you can't make light go slower than the speed of light bosons and fermions are different, and follow different rules. You cannot make direct comparisons.

We aren't talking about matter...we are talking about photons.

But I agree that photons know where they are going, just not that they are in physical contact. Someone, Feynman perhaps, postulated that inertia is a consequence of changing the destination of photons after they were emitted but before they arrived. Hey its good sci-fi at least.

If you agree that photons experience where they are going from the time they come into existence...that must mean that they experience all possible places they can go unless you are saying that they are aimed from their point of origin....So if they experience all possible places they can go, why would they go towards a warmer body in opposition to the second law?

And again, what is the difference between zero distance and physical contact.

One other thing...I asked toddster and crick but got no answer, and I am really interested in getting someone else thought on this question. If you could see a photon from its point of origin going to some point say, half a light year away, what would you see? Would you see a particle zipping away, or would you see something more like a string instantly stretched between its point of origin and its destination which would allow it to exist at every point between its point of origin and its destination?

You cannot make a piece of matter go as fast as the speed of light, and you can't make light go slower than the speed of light bosons and fermions are different, and follow different rules. You cannot make direct comparisons.

We aren't talking about matter...we are talking about photons.

But I agree that photons know where they are going, just not that they are in physical contact. Someone, Feynman perhaps, postulated that inertia is a consequence of changing the destination of photons after they were emitted but before they arrived. Hey its good sci-fi at least.

If you agree that photons experience where they are going from the time they come into existence...that must mean that they experience all possible places they can go unless you are saying that they are aimed from their point of origin....So if they experience all possible places they can go, why would they go towards a warmer body in opposition to the second law?

And again, what is the difference between zero distance and physical contact.

One other thing...I asked toddster and crick but got no answer, and I am really interested in getting someone else thought on this question. If you could see a photon from its point of origin going to some point say, half a light year away, what would you see? Would you see a particle zipping away, or would you see something more like a string instantly stretched between its point of origin and its destination which would allow it to exist at every point between its point of origin and its destination?

Perhaps more like a chain, with alternating electro/magnetic cycles. It has to know if it synches up with the target as attractive or repulsive. Radiative photons just go.

 

[IanC]

Does the 70 degree blanket you cover yourself with at night make you feel warmer? Why?

That blanket has to do with convection...radiation does not play a part. If you want to imagine that the atmosphere is a blanket, then all so called greenhouse gas molecules, with the exception of water, are holes in that blanket.

Can you expand that whole 'holes in the blanket' thing? It is not immediately obvious to me.

OK...I'll try. In our atmosphere, oxygen and nitrogen and the other trace non "greenhouse" gasses would be the blanket, if you wan't to imagine the atmosphere as a blanket. They are the gasses that actually accumulate energy escaping from the surface via convection. The radiative gasses, serve to cool the atmosphere by radiating away that accumulating heat. The non radiative gasses are the blanket because they can only move energy out via conduction and convection. If there were no radiative gasses in the atmosphere, it would be warmer by whatever percentage of energy radiation moves out of the lower atmosphere. A few percent at best I think. So the radiative gas molecules are holes in the blanket composed of non radiative gasses.

Ahhhh. But even without GHGs the atmosphere still produces blackbody radiation from collisions. In fact that is where the energy absorbed by CO2 predominantly ends up.

 

[SSDD]

Perhaps more like a chain, with alternating electro/magnetic cycles. It has to know if it synches up with the target as attractive or repulsive. Radiative photons just go.

Just go? You sure about that? Bet your life on it sure? Why just go to a place vibrating at a higher frequency if they have already experienced it?

 

[SSDD]

Does the 70 degree blanket you cover yourself with at night make you feel warmer? Why?

That blanket has to do with convection...radiation does not play a part. If you want to imagine that the atmosphere is a blanket, then all so called greenhouse gas molecules, with the exception of water, are holes in that blanket.

Can you expand that whole 'holes in the blanket' thing? It is not immediately obvious to me.

OK...I'll try. In our atmosphere, oxygen and nitrogen and the other trace non "greenhouse" gasses would be the blanket, if you wan't to imagine the atmosphere as a blanket. They are the gasses that actually accumulate energy escaping from the surface via convection. The radiative gasses, serve to cool the atmosphere by radiating away that accumulating heat. The non radiative gasses are the blanket because they can only move energy out via conduction and convection. If there were no radiative gasses in the atmosphere, it would be warmer by whatever percentage of energy radiation moves out of the lower atmosphere. A few percent at best I think. So the radiative gas molecules are holes in the blanket composed of non radiative gasses.

Ahhhh. But even without GHGs the atmosphere still produces blackbody radiation from collisions. In fact that is where the energy absorbed by CO2 predominantly ends up.

And the blanket would just be warmer...radiative gas molecules are holes in the blanket. Do you really argue that the atmosphere would be cooler if it had no means to radiatively cool itself in the lower atmosphere?

 

[jc456]

nope, you're wrong. And you fail to answer the question. Does cold make warm warmer.? Still haven't answered, fifteen flippin pages and you beat around the question. Answer it then.

You're even dumber than SSDD.

yes I am, he's way over my head. I'm logical, and you fail logic. And, to the dummy me, you still haven't answered the question. Can we go fifteen more pages or you can simply acknowledge you have no proof?

Does cold make warm warmer.?

Of course not. Put an ice cube in your warm Coke. See for yourself.

well son, my argument is that the cooler atmosphere cannot warm the surface. I ask for proof. None is given.

well son, my argument is that the cooler atmosphere cannot warm the surface.

Yes, we're all aware of your low IQ.

I ask for proof. None is given.

Does the 70 degree blanket you cover yourself with at night make you feel warmer? Why?

Yes, we're all aware of your low IQ.
Well, since you're so much more smarter than me, show me evidence of back radiation, you know where the cold atmosphere pushes IR waves back to the surface. Funny how the internet sources can't seem to provide an experiment. But hey, I'm no scientist and I have a low IQ, but damn if I can figure out why it's cold in the desert at night with CO2 above it. strange.

Does the 70 degree blanket you cover yourself with at night make you feel warmer? Why
because it is made of cotton, covers me at night when I'm cold and makes me warm. BTW, mine is 66 degrees before I use it. It isn't made of CO2 so I don't understand the anomaly. Perhaps it's due to my low IQ I bet ya.

 

[jc456]

You cannot make a piece of matter go as fast as the speed of light, and you can't make light go slower than the speed of light bosons and fermions are different, and follow different rules. You cannot make direct comparisons.

We aren't talking about matter...we are talking about photons.

But I agree that photons know where they are going, just not that they are in physical contact. Someone, Feynman perhaps, postulated that inertia is a consequence of changing the destination of photons after they were emitted but before they arrived. Hey its good sci-fi at least.

If you agree that photons experience where they are going from the time they come into existence...that must mean that they experience all possible places they can go unless you are saying that they are aimed from their point of origin....So if they experience all possible places they can go, why would they go towards a warmer body in opposition to the second law?

And again, what is the difference between zero distance and physical contact.

One other thing...I asked toddster and crick but got no answer, and I am really interested in getting someone else thought on this question. If you could see a photon from its point of origin going to some point say, half a light year away, what would you see? Would you see a particle zipping away, or would you see something more like a string instantly stretched between its point of origin and its destination which would allow it to exist at every point between its point of origin and its destination?

You cannot make a piece of matter go as fast as the speed of light, and you can't make light go slower than the speed of light bosons and fermions are different, and follow different rules. You cannot make direct comparisons.

We aren't talking about matter...we are talking about photons.

But I agree that photons know where they are going, just not that they are in physical contact. Someone, Feynman perhaps, postulated that inertia is a consequence of changing the destination of photons after they were emitted but before they arrived. Hey its good sci-fi at least.

If you agree that photons experience where they are going from the time they come into existence...that must mean that they experience all possible places they can go unless you are saying that they are aimed from their point of origin....So if they experience all possible places they can go, why would they go towards a warmer body in opposition to the second law?

And again, what is the difference between zero distance and physical contact.

One other thing...I asked toddster and crick but got no answer, and I am really interested in getting someone else thought on this question. If you could see a photon from its point of origin going to some point say, half a light year away, what would you see? Would you see a particle zipping away, or would you see something more like a string instantly stretched between its point of origin and its destination which would allow it to exist at every point between its point of origin and its destination?

Perhaps more like a chain, with alternating electro/magnetic cycles. It has to know if it synches up with the target as attractive or repulsive. Radiative photons just go.

ok, so more stupid jc here, so isn't the target also sending photons toward it and they actually meet somewhere in between? That is if all things radiate.

 

[SSDD]

ok, so more stupid jc here, so isn't the target also sending photons toward it and they actually meet somewhere in between? That is if all things radiate.

They are already there....those photons from the target are moving at the speed of light also.. That's part of why I say that the photon knows what every possible destination is like...they are all zero distance away from each other....I can't see how it is any different from conduction which most people readily agree isn't subject to energy moving uphill from a cooler area to a warmer area.