Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
yes and no. He misquotes everyone on here including you a lot. he is lost and why he doesn't understand. he can't back up his story or claim. he is left speechless in the fact that he can't refute what you have posted.here is the crick quote that jc
he can't, you made arguments he can't dispute. So he's speechless.So you DO know how to quote me yet you prefer not to?
I WISH he was speechless!
unfortunately he misunderstands what I say, and then argues against what he thinks I said rather than what I actually said.
It seems to me that your disagreements are in the mode of the thought experiments.Earth's energy budget consists of solar in, minus (shortwave and longwave out). Surely there is no argument there.
Nothing significant.
Solar is considered constant.
No, it's not. But we can do so.
That leaves SW and LW out as the variables. CO2 theory involves LW almost exclusively so we can consider SW out as constant too.
If we want to.
Any deviation from equilibrium will cause warming or cooling.
Here is a problem of yours. You made the same sort of statements in our earlier discussion. No system will move away from equilibrium. Systems always move towards their equilibrium. EQUILIBRIUM moves away from the system. Tell me you understand that.
It is presumed that increased CO2 has blocked 0.85watts per square meter of long wave radiation from escaping at the top of the atmosphere which leads to warming in the pathways below TOA. Are we still in agreement?
No. CO2 doesn't block IR. It slows it and thus increases the atmosphere's total heat content.
As long as there is blocked LW there will be warming. If the surface and atmosphere warm up enough to produce enough LW to force 0.85w more out into space then the Earth will once again be in equilibrium.
Equilibrium is a state whose parameters are defined by the physical characteristics of the system. Change the system and you change the equilibrium state.
The surface and atmosphere will still be warmer than before the extra CO2 blocked 0.85w but the system will be back in equilibrium. Are we still in agreement?
The system will be warmer but it will be back in equilibrium. The system became warmer because the equilibrium temperature increased.
Any increase from the deficit of 0.85w will cause less warming
If you mean, the rate of warming slows as the system approaches equilibrium, I agree. However, this is the opposite of what you said earlier and a point on which I clearly corrected you.
and indeed any increase of LW more than 0.85w will cause cooling. Is that concept clear?
No, and I'm becoming less and less impressed with your smarts Ian. If the equilibrium state has not changed from the +0.85w/m2 that you posited in the beginning, temperatures will not exceed that value. As you yourself just said, warming slows as equilibrium approaches. The system cannot overshoot it. The temperature parameter of the equilibrium state space can be increased which will cause the system to be driven towards a new, warmer state, but it cannot be driven past equilibrium. Ever.
I believe IANC is thinking in terms of what will happen as a result of a perturbation from equilibrium.
And Crick is saying that in reality there is always equilibrium.
Of course Crick is correct because changes in CO2 are too slow to allow anything but equilibrium.
And IANC is correct in the sense that he is looking at it from a more academic point.
Crick is in a sense saying that a string will always be vertical if a rock hangs from it.
IANC is in a sense saying that if you push the rock, it will eventually stop swinging and hang vertically.
If I'm wrong, then I don't understand either of your points, and I'm sure you will point that out.
I don't think you understand my point. There is only one main equilibrium. Solar energy in, Earth energy out. If there is an imbalance the Earth will either gain or lose energy. Unless solar changes then the other side is a fixed value as well.
All the other processes are powered by the Sun. While a snapshot any of these processes will still be under pressure to equilibrate there is no value that is defined as the correct one. Eg. The Earth could be in perfect equilibrium at surface temperatures of -15, 0, +15 etc.
Crick states that a warmer surface will necessarily cause an increase of outgoing LW at TOA. I am saying that is bullshit and only the balance of input minus output matters. No single piece of all the pathways has a special meaning that disrupts the overarching energy balance of Earth.
Feel free to bring up any points you disagree with.
It seems to me that your disagreements are in the mode of the thought experiments.Earth's energy budget consists of solar in, minus (shortwave and longwave out). Surely there is no argument there.
Nothing significant.
Solar is considered constant.
No, it's not. But we can do so.
That leaves SW and LW out as the variables. CO2 theory involves LW almost exclusively so we can consider SW out as constant too.
If we want to.
Any deviation from equilibrium will cause warming or cooling.
Here is a problem of yours. You made the same sort of statements in our earlier discussion. No system will move away from equilibrium. Systems always move towards their equilibrium. EQUILIBRIUM moves away from the system. Tell me you understand that.
It is presumed that increased CO2 has blocked 0.85watts per square meter of long wave radiation from escaping at the top of the atmosphere which leads to warming in the pathways below TOA. Are we still in agreement?
No. CO2 doesn't block IR. It slows it and thus increases the atmosphere's total heat content.
As long as there is blocked LW there will be warming. If the surface and atmosphere warm up enough to produce enough LW to force 0.85w more out into space then the Earth will once again be in equilibrium.
Equilibrium is a state whose parameters are defined by the physical characteristics of the system. Change the system and you change the equilibrium state.
The surface and atmosphere will still be warmer than before the extra CO2 blocked 0.85w but the system will be back in equilibrium. Are we still in agreement?
The system will be warmer but it will be back in equilibrium. The system became warmer because the equilibrium temperature increased.
Any increase from the deficit of 0.85w will cause less warming
If you mean, the rate of warming slows as the system approaches equilibrium, I agree. However, this is the opposite of what you said earlier and a point on which I clearly corrected you.
and indeed any increase of LW more than 0.85w will cause cooling. Is that concept clear?
No, and I'm becoming less and less impressed with your smarts Ian. If the equilibrium state has not changed from the +0.85w/m2 that you posited in the beginning, temperatures will not exceed that value. As you yourself just said, warming slows as equilibrium approaches. The system cannot overshoot it. The temperature parameter of the equilibrium state space can be increased which will cause the system to be driven towards a new, warmer state, but it cannot be driven past equilibrium. Ever.
I believe IANC is thinking in terms of what will happen as a result of a perturbation from equilibrium.
And Crick is saying that in reality there is always equilibrium.
Of course Crick is correct because changes in CO2 are too slow to allow anything but equilibrium.
And IANC is correct in the sense that he is looking at it from a more academic point.
Crick is in a sense saying that a string will always be vertical if a rock hangs from it.
IANC is in a sense saying that if you push the rock, it will eventually stop swinging and hang vertically.
If I'm wrong, then I don't understand either of your points, and I'm sure you will point that out.
I don't think you understand my point. There is only one main equilibrium. Solar energy in, Earth energy out. If there is an imbalance the Earth will either gain or lose energy. Unless solar changes then the other side is a fixed value as well.
All the other processes are powered by the Sun. While a snapshot any of these processes will still be under pressure to equilibrate there is no value that is defined as the correct one. Eg. The Earth could be in perfect equilibrium at surface temperatures of -15, 0, +15 etc.
Crick states that a warmer surface will necessarily cause an increase of outgoing LW at TOA. I am saying that is bullshit and only the balance of input minus output matters. No single piece of all the pathways has a special meaning that disrupts the overarching energy balance of Earth.
Feel free to bring up any points you disagree with.
I did NOT say a warmer surface will necessarily cause an increase of outgoing LW at ToA. I said, and I maintain, that the amount of outgoing LW is determined by the temperature of the Earth (recall I pointed out that by "the Earth" I did NOT mean just the surface but "the whole kit and caboodle").
The equilibrium state of the planet is determined by a number of its physical parameters. When those parameters change (eg: by adding CO2 to the atmosphere), the equilibrium values change. And for Wuwei, no, the Earth is not at equilibrium. CO2 levels are changing slowly, but nearly as slowly as the Earth warms or cools. If we stopped changing anything this instant, we would not achieve equilibrium for more than a century.
As I stated repeatedly, CO2 does not "block" LW. It slows its escape to space and thus increases the heat content of the atmosphere (and the temperature of the land and sea). The drops in Earth's radiated spectrum at the ToA, at the frequencies absorbed by the atmosphere's greenhouse gases are those portions of the spectrum being slowed by absorption and reemission. A portion of that particular energy is also being consumed by the warming of the land and seas. Non-GHG matter, gaining energy via conduction or absorption from the GHGs, will radiate it's thermal energy in different spectral portions of the IR band.
As I stated, Equilibrium is determined by the state of the planet. The planet's increase or decrease of energy is a result of the difference between its state and equilibrium - equilibrium is not driven in any particular direction by the Earth gaining or losing energy.
It seems to me that your disagreements are in the mode of the thought experiments.Earth's energy budget consists of solar in, minus (shortwave and longwave out). Surely there is no argument there.
Nothing significant.
Solar is considered constant.
No, it's not. But we can do so.
That leaves SW and LW out as the variables. CO2 theory involves LW almost exclusively so we can consider SW out as constant too.
If we want to.
Any deviation from equilibrium will cause warming or cooling.
Here is a problem of yours. You made the same sort of statements in our earlier discussion. No system will move away from equilibrium. Systems always move towards their equilibrium. EQUILIBRIUM moves away from the system. Tell me you understand that.
It is presumed that increased CO2 has blocked 0.85watts per square meter of long wave radiation from escaping at the top of the atmosphere which leads to warming in the pathways below TOA. Are we still in agreement?
No. CO2 doesn't block IR. It slows it and thus increases the atmosphere's total heat content.
As long as there is blocked LW there will be warming. If the surface and atmosphere warm up enough to produce enough LW to force 0.85w more out into space then the Earth will once again be in equilibrium.
Equilibrium is a state whose parameters are defined by the physical characteristics of the system. Change the system and you change the equilibrium state.
The surface and atmosphere will still be warmer than before the extra CO2 blocked 0.85w but the system will be back in equilibrium. Are we still in agreement?
The system will be warmer but it will be back in equilibrium. The system became warmer because the equilibrium temperature increased.
Any increase from the deficit of 0.85w will cause less warming
If you mean, the rate of warming slows as the system approaches equilibrium, I agree. However, this is the opposite of what you said earlier and a point on which I clearly corrected you.
and indeed any increase of LW more than 0.85w will cause cooling. Is that concept clear?
No, and I'm becoming less and less impressed with your smarts Ian. If the equilibrium state has not changed from the +0.85w/m2 that you posited in the beginning, temperatures will not exceed that value. As you yourself just said, warming slows as equilibrium approaches. The system cannot overshoot it. The temperature parameter of the equilibrium state space can be increased which will cause the system to be driven towards a new, warmer state, but it cannot be driven past equilibrium. Ever.
I believe IANC is thinking in terms of what will happen as a result of a perturbation from equilibrium.
And Crick is saying that in reality there is always equilibrium.
Of course Crick is correct because changes in CO2 are too slow to allow anything but equilibrium.
And IANC is correct in the sense that he is looking at it from a more academic point.
Crick is in a sense saying that a string will always be vertical if a rock hangs from it.
IANC is in a sense saying that if you push the rock, it will eventually stop swinging and hang vertically.
If I'm wrong, then I don't understand either of your points, and I'm sure you will point that out.
I don't think you understand my point. There is only one main equilibrium. Solar energy in, Earth energy out. If there is an imbalance the Earth will either gain or lose energy. Unless solar changes then the other side is a fixed value as well.
All the other processes are powered by the Sun. While a snapshot any of these processes will still be under pressure to equilibrate there is no value that is defined as the correct one. Eg. The Earth could be in perfect equilibrium at surface temperatures of -15, 0, +15 etc.
Crick states that a warmer surface will necessarily cause an increase of outgoing LW at TOA. I am saying that is bullshit and only the balance of input minus output matters. No single piece of all the pathways has a special meaning that disrupts the overarching energy balance of Earth.
Feel free to bring up any points you disagree with.
I did NOT say a warmer surface will necessarily cause an increase of outgoing LW at ToA. I said, and I maintain, that the amount of outgoing LW is determined by the temperature of the Earth (recall I pointed out that by "the Earth" I did NOT mean just the surface but "the whole kit and caboodle").
The equilibrium state of the planet is determined by a number of its physical parameters. When those parameters change (eg: by adding CO2 to the atmosphere), the equilibrium values change. And for Wuwei, no, the Earth is not at equilibrium. CO2 levels are changing slowly, but nearly as slowly as the Earth warms or cools. If we stopped changing anything this instant, we would not achieve equilibrium for more than a century.
As I stated repeatedly, CO2 does not "block" LW. It slows its escape to space and thus increases the heat content of the atmosphere (and the temperature of the land and sea). The drops in Earth's radiated spectrum at the ToA, at the frequencies absorbed by the atmosphere's greenhouse gases are those portions of the spectrum being slowed by absorption and reemission. A portion of that particular energy is also being consumed by the warming of the land and seas. Non-GHG matter, gaining energy via conduction or absorption from the GHGs, will radiate it's thermal energy in different spectral portions of the IR band.
As I stated, Equilibrium is determined by the state of the planet. The planet's increase or decrease of energy is a result of the difference between its state and equilibrium - equilibrium is not driven in any particular direction by the Earth gaining or losing energy.
Good. Thanks for doing some research. I'm sure future conversations will be far less acrimonious now that we both seem to be on the same page.
holy crap, are you pretending to be Ian now? You've never ever made these statements as long as I have been on here. You are a liar sir. A man with no integrity I see. Caught and now trying to agree. It takes a better man to just say you were wrong and Ian was right. But you don't have that quality.It seems to me that your disagreements are in the mode of the thought experiments.Earth's energy budget consists of solar in, minus (shortwave and longwave out). Surely there is no argument there.
Nothing significant.
Solar is considered constant.
No, it's not. But we can do so.
That leaves SW and LW out as the variables. CO2 theory involves LW almost exclusively so we can consider SW out as constant too.
If we want to.
Any deviation from equilibrium will cause warming or cooling.
Here is a problem of yours. You made the same sort of statements in our earlier discussion. No system will move away from equilibrium. Systems always move towards their equilibrium. EQUILIBRIUM moves away from the system. Tell me you understand that.
It is presumed that increased CO2 has blocked 0.85watts per square meter of long wave radiation from escaping at the top of the atmosphere which leads to warming in the pathways below TOA. Are we still in agreement?
No. CO2 doesn't block IR. It slows it and thus increases the atmosphere's total heat content.
As long as there is blocked LW there will be warming. If the surface and atmosphere warm up enough to produce enough LW to force 0.85w more out into space then the Earth will once again be in equilibrium.
Equilibrium is a state whose parameters are defined by the physical characteristics of the system. Change the system and you change the equilibrium state.
The surface and atmosphere will still be warmer than before the extra CO2 blocked 0.85w but the system will be back in equilibrium. Are we still in agreement?
The system will be warmer but it will be back in equilibrium. The system became warmer because the equilibrium temperature increased.
Any increase from the deficit of 0.85w will cause less warming
If you mean, the rate of warming slows as the system approaches equilibrium, I agree. However, this is the opposite of what you said earlier and a point on which I clearly corrected you.
and indeed any increase of LW more than 0.85w will cause cooling. Is that concept clear?
No, and I'm becoming less and less impressed with your smarts Ian. If the equilibrium state has not changed from the +0.85w/m2 that you posited in the beginning, temperatures will not exceed that value. As you yourself just said, warming slows as equilibrium approaches. The system cannot overshoot it. The temperature parameter of the equilibrium state space can be increased which will cause the system to be driven towards a new, warmer state, but it cannot be driven past equilibrium. Ever.
I believe IANC is thinking in terms of what will happen as a result of a perturbation from equilibrium.
And Crick is saying that in reality there is always equilibrium.
Of course Crick is correct because changes in CO2 are too slow to allow anything but equilibrium.
And IANC is correct in the sense that he is looking at it from a more academic point.
Crick is in a sense saying that a string will always be vertical if a rock hangs from it.
IANC is in a sense saying that if you push the rock, it will eventually stop swinging and hang vertically.
If I'm wrong, then I don't understand either of your points, and I'm sure you will point that out.
I don't think you understand my point. There is only one main equilibrium. Solar energy in, Earth energy out. If there is an imbalance the Earth will either gain or lose energy. Unless solar changes then the other side is a fixed value as well.
All the other processes are powered by the Sun. While a snapshot any of these processes will still be under pressure to equilibrate there is no value that is defined as the correct one. Eg. The Earth could be in perfect equilibrium at surface temperatures of -15, 0, +15 etc.
Crick states that a warmer surface will necessarily cause an increase of outgoing LW at TOA. I am saying that is bullshit and only the balance of input minus output matters. No single piece of all the pathways has a special meaning that disrupts the overarching energy balance of Earth.
Feel free to bring up any points you disagree with.
I did NOT say a warmer surface will necessarily cause an increase of outgoing LW at ToA. I said, and I maintain, that the amount of outgoing LW is determined by the temperature of the Earth (recall I pointed out that by "the Earth" I did NOT mean just the surface but "the whole kit and caboodle").
The equilibrium state of the planet is determined by a number of its physical parameters. When those parameters change (eg: by adding CO2 to the atmosphere), the equilibrium values change. And for Wuwei, no, the Earth is not at equilibrium. CO2 levels are changing slowly, but nearly as slowly as the Earth warms or cools. If we stopped changing anything this instant, we would not achieve equilibrium for more than a century.
As I stated repeatedly, CO2 does not "block" LW. It slows its escape to space and thus increases the heat content of the atmosphere (and the temperature of the land and sea). The drops in Earth's radiated spectrum at the ToA, at the frequencies absorbed by the atmosphere's greenhouse gases are those portions of the spectrum being slowed by absorption and reemission. A portion of that particular energy is also being consumed by the warming of the land and seas. Non-GHG matter, gaining energy via conduction or absorption from the GHGs, will radiate it's thermal energy in different spectral portions of the IR band.
As I stated, Equilibrium is determined by the state of the planet. The planet's increase or decrease of energy is a result of the difference between its state and equilibrium - equilibrium is not driven in any particular direction by the Earth gaining or losing energy.
holy crap, are you pretending to be Ian now? You've never ever made these statements as long as I have been on here. You are a liar sir. A man with no integrity I see. Caught and now trying to agree. It takes a better man to just say you were wrong and Ian was right. But you don't have that quality.It seems to me that your disagreements are in the mode of the thought experiments.Earth's energy budget consists of solar in, minus (shortwave and longwave out). Surely there is no argument there.
Nothing significant.
Solar is considered constant.
No, it's not. But we can do so.
That leaves SW and LW out as the variables. CO2 theory involves LW almost exclusively so we can consider SW out as constant too.
If we want to.
Any deviation from equilibrium will cause warming or cooling.
Here is a problem of yours. You made the same sort of statements in our earlier discussion. No system will move away from equilibrium. Systems always move towards their equilibrium. EQUILIBRIUM moves away from the system. Tell me you understand that.
It is presumed that increased CO2 has blocked 0.85watts per square meter of long wave radiation from escaping at the top of the atmosphere which leads to warming in the pathways below TOA. Are we still in agreement?
No. CO2 doesn't block IR. It slows it and thus increases the atmosphere's total heat content.
As long as there is blocked LW there will be warming. If the surface and atmosphere warm up enough to produce enough LW to force 0.85w more out into space then the Earth will once again be in equilibrium.
Equilibrium is a state whose parameters are defined by the physical characteristics of the system. Change the system and you change the equilibrium state.
The surface and atmosphere will still be warmer than before the extra CO2 blocked 0.85w but the system will be back in equilibrium. Are we still in agreement?
The system will be warmer but it will be back in equilibrium. The system became warmer because the equilibrium temperature increased.
Any increase from the deficit of 0.85w will cause less warming
If you mean, the rate of warming slows as the system approaches equilibrium, I agree. However, this is the opposite of what you said earlier and a point on which I clearly corrected you.
and indeed any increase of LW more than 0.85w will cause cooling. Is that concept clear?
No, and I'm becoming less and less impressed with your smarts Ian. If the equilibrium state has not changed from the +0.85w/m2 that you posited in the beginning, temperatures will not exceed that value. As you yourself just said, warming slows as equilibrium approaches. The system cannot overshoot it. The temperature parameter of the equilibrium state space can be increased which will cause the system to be driven towards a new, warmer state, but it cannot be driven past equilibrium. Ever.
I believe IANC is thinking in terms of what will happen as a result of a perturbation from equilibrium.
And Crick is saying that in reality there is always equilibrium.
Of course Crick is correct because changes in CO2 are too slow to allow anything but equilibrium.
And IANC is correct in the sense that he is looking at it from a more academic point.
Crick is in a sense saying that a string will always be vertical if a rock hangs from it.
IANC is in a sense saying that if you push the rock, it will eventually stop swinging and hang vertically.
If I'm wrong, then I don't understand either of your points, and I'm sure you will point that out.
I don't think you understand my point. There is only one main equilibrium. Solar energy in, Earth energy out. If there is an imbalance the Earth will either gain or lose energy. Unless solar changes then the other side is a fixed value as well.
All the other processes are powered by the Sun. While a snapshot any of these processes will still be under pressure to equilibrate there is no value that is defined as the correct one. Eg. The Earth could be in perfect equilibrium at surface temperatures of -15, 0, +15 etc.
Crick states that a warmer surface will necessarily cause an increase of outgoing LW at TOA. I am saying that is bullshit and only the balance of input minus output matters. No single piece of all the pathways has a special meaning that disrupts the overarching energy balance of Earth.
Feel free to bring up any points you disagree with.
I did NOT say a warmer surface will necessarily cause an increase of outgoing LW at ToA. I said, and I maintain, that the amount of outgoing LW is determined by the temperature of the Earth (recall I pointed out that by "the Earth" I did NOT mean just the surface but "the whole kit and caboodle").
The equilibrium state of the planet is determined by a number of its physical parameters. When those parameters change (eg: by adding CO2 to the atmosphere), the equilibrium values change. And for Wuwei, no, the Earth is not at equilibrium. CO2 levels are changing slowly, but nearly as slowly as the Earth warms or cools. If we stopped changing anything this instant, we would not achieve equilibrium for more than a century.
As I stated repeatedly, CO2 does not "block" LW. It slows its escape to space and thus increases the heat content of the atmosphere (and the temperature of the land and sea). The drops in Earth's radiated spectrum at the ToA, at the frequencies absorbed by the atmosphere's greenhouse gases are those portions of the spectrum being slowed by absorption and reemission. A portion of that particular energy is also being consumed by the warming of the land and seas. Non-GHG matter, gaining energy via conduction or absorption from the GHGs, will radiate it's thermal energy in different spectral portions of the IR band.
As I stated, Equilibrium is determined by the state of the planet. The planet's increase or decrease of energy is a result of the difference between its state and equilibrium - equilibrium is not driven in any particular direction by the Earth gaining or losing energy.
I must have missed the water vapor makes the air heavier comment. Had I seen that, I would of asked him if it was easier to hit a home run with a baseball in humid air or dry air. Love to hear his answer for that.holy crap, are you pretending to be Ian now? You've never ever made these statements as long as I have been on here. You are a liar sir. A man with no integrity I see. Caught and now trying to agree. It takes a better man to just say you were wrong and Ian was right. But you don't have that quality.It seems to me that your disagreements are in the mode of the thought experiments.Nothing significant.
No, it's not. But we can do so.
If we want to.
Here is a problem of yours. You made the same sort of statements in our earlier discussion. No system will move away from equilibrium. Systems always move towards their equilibrium. EQUILIBRIUM moves away from the system. Tell me you understand that.
No. CO2 doesn't block IR. It slows it and thus increases the atmosphere's total heat content.
Equilibrium is a state whose parameters are defined by the physical characteristics of the system. Change the system and you change the equilibrium state.
The system will be warmer but it will be back in equilibrium. The system became warmer because the equilibrium temperature increased.
If you mean, the rate of warming slows as the system approaches equilibrium, I agree. However, this is the opposite of what you said earlier and a point on which I clearly corrected you.
No, and I'm becoming less and less impressed with your smarts Ian. If the equilibrium state has not changed from the +0.85w/m2 that you posited in the beginning, temperatures will not exceed that value. As you yourself just said, warming slows as equilibrium approaches. The system cannot overshoot it. The temperature parameter of the equilibrium state space can be increased which will cause the system to be driven towards a new, warmer state, but it cannot be driven past equilibrium. Ever.
I believe IANC is thinking in terms of what will happen as a result of a perturbation from equilibrium.
And Crick is saying that in reality there is always equilibrium.
Of course Crick is correct because changes in CO2 are too slow to allow anything but equilibrium.
And IANC is correct in the sense that he is looking at it from a more academic point.
Crick is in a sense saying that a string will always be vertical if a rock hangs from it.
IANC is in a sense saying that if you push the rock, it will eventually stop swinging and hang vertically.
If I'm wrong, then I don't understand either of your points, and I'm sure you will point that out.
I don't think you understand my point. There is only one main equilibrium. Solar energy in, Earth energy out. If there is an imbalance the Earth will either gain or lose energy. Unless solar changes then the other side is a fixed value as well.
All the other processes are powered by the Sun. While a snapshot any of these processes will still be under pressure to equilibrate there is no value that is defined as the correct one. Eg. The Earth could be in perfect equilibrium at surface temperatures of -15, 0, +15 etc.
Crick states that a warmer surface will necessarily cause an increase of outgoing LW at TOA. I am saying that is bullshit and only the balance of input minus output matters. No single piece of all the pathways has a special meaning that disrupts the overarching energy balance of Earth.
Feel free to bring up any points you disagree with.
I did NOT say a warmer surface will necessarily cause an increase of outgoing LW at ToA. I said, and I maintain, that the amount of outgoing LW is determined by the temperature of the Earth (recall I pointed out that by "the Earth" I did NOT mean just the surface but "the whole kit and caboodle").
The equilibrium state of the planet is determined by a number of its physical parameters. When those parameters change (eg: by adding CO2 to the atmosphere), the equilibrium values change. And for Wuwei, no, the Earth is not at equilibrium. CO2 levels are changing slowly, but nearly as slowly as the Earth warms or cools. If we stopped changing anything this instant, we would not achieve equilibrium for more than a century.
As I stated repeatedly, CO2 does not "block" LW. It slows its escape to space and thus increases the heat content of the atmosphere (and the temperature of the land and sea). The drops in Earth's radiated spectrum at the ToA, at the frequencies absorbed by the atmosphere's greenhouse gases are those portions of the spectrum being slowed by absorption and reemission. A portion of that particular energy is also being consumed by the warming of the land and seas. Non-GHG matter, gaining energy via conduction or absorption from the GHGs, will radiate it's thermal energy in different spectral portions of the IR band.
As I stated, Equilibrium is determined by the state of the planet. The planet's increase or decrease of energy is a result of the difference between its state and equilibrium - equilibrium is not driven in any particular direction by the Earth gaining or losing energy.
Remember when crick insisted that water vapour made air heavier? He had no concept of how convection worked. At least that time he came clean and admitted he was confused. This time he is counting on how his garbled statements can be rehabilitated by post hoc explanations about what he 'really meant'. A trick he learned from climate science, I might add. Eg the hockey stick. There was no MWP or LIA. Then there was a MWP and LIA but they were local and small. Then the MWP and LIA are fully consistent with what we have been saying all along.
holy crap, are you pretending to be Ian now? You've never ever made these statements as long as I have been on here. You are a liar sir. A man with no integrity I see. Caught and now trying to agree. It takes a better man to just say you were wrong and Ian was right. But you don't have that quality.
Remember when crick insisted that water vapour made air heavier? He had no concept of how convection worked. At least that time he came clean and admitted he was confused.
I agree. I was too hasty. We are not at equilibrium.And for Wuwei, no, the Earth is not at equilibrium. CO2 levels are changing slowly, but nearly as slowly as the Earth warms or cools. If we stopped changing anything this instant, we would not achieve equilibrium for more than a century.
when one has nothing to say!holy crap, are you pretending to be Ian now? You've never ever made these statements as long as I have been on here. You are a liar sir. A man with no integrity I see. Caught and now trying to agree. It takes a better man to just say you were wrong and Ian was right. But you don't have that quality.
You are stupid and you are a liar.
Remember when crick insisted that water vapour made air heavier? He had no concept of how convection worked. At least that time he came clean and admitted he was confused.
My confusion originated from thinking water vapor was more dense than dry air, which is not the case. That confusion would lead me to believe under certain circumstances that air would move in a different direction than it actually would. It has nothing to do with convection, ie: heat transfer in a convective scenario, which I understand quite well.
I do not, but what I have just said that contends with any of your personal insults?
What is it you'd like to discuss?Continental ice, icecap and glacial expands in cold, contracts in warm. The deniars do not want to discuss this at all.
