Challenge to the Warmers: What's your Theory?

[konradv]

What part of "GHGs slow down the the escape of energy into space" doesn't wirebender understand?!?!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hey look, when you Google you can find a Global Warming Hypothesis

Iris hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The iris hypothesis is a hypothesis proposed by Professor Richard Lindzen in 2001 that suggested increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere...This suggested infrared radiation leakage was hypothesized to be a negative feedback which would have an overall cooling effect... A later 2007 study conducted by Roy Spencer, et al. using updated satellite data supported the iris hypothesis.[5]"

 

[konradv]

Hey look, when you Google you can find a Global Warming Hypothesis

Iris hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The iris hypothesis is a hypothesis proposed by Professor Richard Lindzen in 2001 that suggested increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere...This suggested infrared radiation leakage was hypothesized to be a negative feedback which would have an overall cooling effect... A later 2007 study conducted by Roy Spencer, et al. using updated satellite data supported the iris hypothesis.[5]"

You've been asking for a theory and we're supposed to congratulate you because you found a hypothesis?!?! Not the same thing, but then actually knowing what they're talking about never means much to the deniers/skeptics, because their major concern is political rather than scientific.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hey look, when you Google you can find a Global Warming Hypothesis

Iris hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The iris hypothesis is a hypothesis proposed by Professor Richard Lindzen in 2001 that suggested increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere...This suggested infrared radiation leakage was hypothesized to be a negative feedback which would have an overall cooling effect... A later 2007 study conducted by Roy Spencer, et al. using updated satellite data supported the iris hypothesis.[5]"

You've been asking for a theory and we're supposed to congratulate you because you found a hypothesis?!?! Not the same thing, but then actually knowing what they're talking about never means much to the deniers/skeptics, because their major concern is political rather than scientific.

Swing and a miss!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpT0D1V5VSg]YouTube - ‪MLB 10 The Show - Rangers@Yankees: Joba Strikes out Hamilton with the Bases Loaded‬‏[/ame]

 

[wirebender]

What part of "GHGs slow down the the escape of energy into space" doesn't wirebender understand?!?!

Which part of the graph describes slowing down the escape of energy into space? I see absorption and emission. Show me on the graphic that describes greenhouse theory where it mentions "slowing" down the escape of energy into space. That graph I gave you is the actual science that you are defending. Do you agree with it or not? Why do you need your own hypothesis revolving around "slowing down" IR escaping into space? Is it because you find the actual science to rediculous to believe?

Here is the graph again. I know you don't like looking at it but it represents the actual science as opposed to your "slow down radiation" story.

 

[konradv]

What part of "GHGs slow down the the escape of energy into space" doesn't wirebender understand?!?!

Which part of the graph describes slowing down the escape of energy into space? I see absorption and emission. Show me on the graphic that describes greenhouse theory where it mentions "slowing" down the escape of energy into space. That graph I gave you is the actual science that you are defending. Do you agree with it or not? Why do you need your own hypothesis revolving around "slowing down" IR escaping into space? Is it because you find the actual science to rediculous to believe?

Not playing your games. You may be able to fool the uninitiated, but not me. Once again, what don't you understand about "GHGs slow down the the escape of energy into space"? Where on your graph does it descibe photons leaving earth only to be intercepted by a GHG and then re-emitted back towards earth?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hey look, when you Google you can find a Global Warming Hypothesis

Iris hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The iris hypothesis is a hypothesis proposed by Professor Richard Lindzen in 2001 that suggested increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere...This suggested infrared radiation leakage was hypothesized to be a negative feedback which would have an overall cooling effect... A later 2007 study conducted by Roy Spencer, et al. using updated satellite data supported the iris hypothesis.[5]"

You've been asking for a theory and we're supposed to congratulate you because you found a hypothesis?!?! Not the same thing, but then actually knowing what they're talking about never means much to the deniers/skeptics, because their major concern is political rather than scientific.

Yes, your major concern is political rather than scientific, that's why your 0 for the thread in posting anything resembling a theory, hypothesis, wild guess or crazy notion.

"we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy" -- IPCC

 

[IanC]

wirebender's arguments are just as simplistic as konradv's. GHGs insulate the globe and the temp goes up until equilibrium is reached. it doesnt matter what numerical value is assigned to up/downwelling radiation, just the net effect. increased CO2 theoretically should cause 1C warming for doubling at this postion of the log curve. the whole AGW debate rests on feedbacks. IPCC says positive, history and common sense says negative. the world had liquid water when the sun's output was much less, the world didnt burn up when CO2 was much higher. water and clouds control the thermostat, reacting to changes in the system to keep the temp range dampened down. our research money should be spent on clouds rather than continue to waste it on CO2, which has produced little understanding after 25 years.

 

[wirebender]

What part of "GHGs slow down the the escape of energy into space" doesn't wirebender understand?!?!

Which part of the graph describes slowing down the escape of energy into space? I see absorption and emission. Show me on the graphic that describes greenhouse theory where it mentions "slowing" down the escape of energy into space. That graph I gave you is the actual science that you are defending. Do you agree with it or not? Why do you need your own hypothesis revolving around "slowing down" IR escaping into space? Is it because you find the actual science to rediculous to believe?

Not playing your games. You may be able to fool the uninitiated, but not me. Once again, what don't you understand about "GHGs slow down the the escape of energy into space"?

What I understand is that according to the graphic that represents the basis for both AGW and greenhouse effect hypothesis, there is no "slowing down" the escape of energy mentioned. Don't you think such an important distinction between slowing down the escape of energy into space and the actual absorption of energy by the surface of the earth might be mentioned? Your claims don't match the climate science. Clearly you are a fraud.

So much a fraud, in fact, that you won't even engage on the actual science. The only thing one can take out of the difference between the actual claims of climate science and your own personal "hypothesis" is that you don't believe the actual science any more than I do. When you look at it, it is patently rediculous and completely indefensible.

Where on your graph does it descibe photons leaving earth only to be intercepted by a GHG and then re-emitted back towards earth?
:eusa_whistle

First, it isn't my graph. It is the graph upon which the completely rediculous hypothoses of AGW and the greenhouse effect are based. It is the graph that represents the basis of climate science. As to where it describes photons leaving earth only to be intercepted and the re-emitted back towards earth:

ARE YOU KIDDING?

The 323 wm2 described as backradiation. I have a low estimation of you konradv, but even I don't think for a second that you are that stupid.

Here, allow me to provide you with a definition of backradiation. When you go to the Glossary of Meterology at the American Meterological Society's web site and do a search for backradiation, you are told that it is the same as counterradiation. When you look up counterradiation you get the following definition:

counterradiation—The downward flux of longwave radiation across a given surface, usually taken as the earth's surface. Counterradiation originates in emission by clouds and greenhouse gases at different heights and temperatures, and is modified by subsequent absorption before reaching the surface in question.

The long-term global average of counterradiation reaching the earth's surface is about 330 W m−2, making it one of the largest terms in the surface energy balance.

So there you have it from the horse's mouth. Backradiation is one of the largest terms in the surface energy balance of the earth. Backradiation provides more energy to the surface of the earth than the sun according to climate science.

 

[wirebender]

wirebender's arguments are just as simplistic as konradv's.

My arguments have to be simple because konradv is obvously simple. Believe what you want about CO2 but there is not one shred of observed evdience that proves that it can alter the temperature in an open system.

 

[konradv]

wirebender's arguments are just as simplistic as konradv's.

My arguments have to be simple because konradv is obvously simple. Believe what you want about CO2 but there is not one shred of observed evdience that proves that it can alter the temperature in an open system.

You're quite wrong about that. If it absorbs IR in my spectrophotometer, it'll absorb IR in the atmosphere.

 

[IanC]

wirebender's arguments are just as simplistic as konradv's.

My arguments have to be simple because konradv is obvously simple. Believe what you want about CO2 but there is not one shred of observed evdience that proves that it can alter the temperature in an open system.

do you really believe CO2 makes no difference in the overall equilibrium of the globe's climate? or are you just complaining about how it is presented? the earth is warmer with an atmosphere and in the big picture it doesnt matter what values are used to describe how much IR is emitted and bounced around. only the net escape matters for non specialists. I can understand you being pissed off at being sold a whacky diagram and theory based on climate models that are hardwired to show excess importance for CO2 but you seem to want to argue niggling mistakes and deny everything that the warmers say just on principal. do you deny CO2 affects the temp, even if we cant attach a specific number to it?

 

[wirebender]

wirebender's arguments are just as simplistic as konradv's.

My arguments have to be simple because konradv is obvously simple. Believe what you want about CO2 but there is not one shred of observed evdience that proves that it can alter the temperature in an open system.

You're quite wrong about that. If it absorbs IR in my spectrophotometer, it'll absorb IR in the atmosphere.

Check the emission spectrum of CO2 with your spectrometer. You will see that it has emitted precisely the same amount of energy that it absorbed and has emitted the energy in a wave to long to be absorbed by another CO2 molecule.

 

[wirebender]

do you really believe CO2 makes no difference in the overall equilibrium of the globe's climate? or are you just complaining about how it is presented? the earth is warmer with an atmosphere and in the big picture it doesnt matter what values are used to describe how much IR is emitted and bounced around. only the net escape matters for non specialists. I can understand you being pissed off at being sold a whacky diagram and theory based on climate models that are hardwired to show excess importance for CO2 but you seem to want to argue niggling mistakes and deny everything that the warmers say just on principal. do you deny CO2 affects the temp, even if we cant attach a specific number to it?

Here are the basic facts. The greenhouse effect and AGW depend on backradiation from an atmosphere that is colder than the earth to heat the earth.

Further fact: CO2 is not, has not been, and never will be an energy source BUT all AGW and greenhouse effect scientific papers claim that more energy is being radiatied from the earth and atmosphere than is received from the sun. This MUST involve the creation of energy somewhere as the sun is the only source of energy.

Further fact: Atmospheric CO2 has an average temperature of -20 degrees C and the surface of the earth has an average temperature of +15 degrees C. It is therefore impossible for CO2 to cause the warming of a warmer earth as it would be a clear violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

As I have already pointed out, and provided links to the experiment performed by the physics department of BYU, and you may perform it yourself for about 15 dollars and an hour and a half of your time; if you point a parabolic reflector at the sky during daylight hours but away from the sun, you can achieve a cooling effect. If backradiation existed, it would warm any object inside the dish no matter which direction you point it. Further, if you point the dish at the sky during the night, it is possible to get ice when the ambient temperature is nearly 48 degrees. According to climate science, backradiation is happening everywhere 24/7.

Explain which law of phisics would allow CO2 to backradiate and warm the earth and yet allow ice to form when the temperature is nearly 48 degrees F by aiming a parabolic dish at that same radiation.

By the way, the earth is only warmer during nighttime hours because it has an atmosphere. During the daylight hours, the atmosphere serves to dissipate and scatter incoming radiation and effectively keeps us from burining up. Check the daytime temperature of the moon which receives roughly the same amount of energy from the sun per square meter as the earth.

 

[IanC]

wirebender- subtracting a negative number gives a positive result. slowing down the loss of heat results in more heat remaining. the atmosphere dampens the temp swings in both direction, which doesnt happen on the moon.

 

[wirebender]

wirebender- subtracting a negative number gives a positive result. slowing down the loss of heat results in more heat remaining. the atmosphere dampens the temp swings in both direction, which doesnt happen on the moon.

None the less, you want me to beleive that a cooler atmosphere can heat up a warmer earth.

More facts:

Radiating IR is realized by propagating electromagnetic fields. These fields are vector fields and they travel at, or very near the speed of light. The earth radiates IR at a rate of about 390 watts per square meter. This heats the atmosphere to an average of -20C. The atmosphere in turn radiates about 324 watts per square meter in all directions.

Subtract the resultant EM field (390-324) and the remainder is 66 watts per square meter in favor of the earth so the radiation is up. All of the energy radiated from the surface of the earth is radiated into cold space. There is no slowing down of the rate of heat loss. You simply can not store up more energy than is available.

 

[IanC]

the sun produces highly energetic photons that take 1M years to bounce around and be converted to the average 4000C light that is emitted by the surface. I have no problem seeing Earth's atmosphere slowing down escaping IR until it is converted into wavelengths that easily escape. my problem with AGW is the presumed positive feedbacks that do not agree with actual measurements.

you can argue little details and concoct scenarios which you imagine the laws of thermodynamics are being broken but you are hurting the anti-catastrophe side by acting like a lawyer trying to create doubt rather than a scientist trying to explain the evidence. CO2 back radiation doesnt 'warm' the Earth but slowing the cooling can, all other things being unchaged, which of course they are not. give the red herring of the second law of thermodynamics a rest. it doesnt apply in the manner that you say it does.

 

[wirebender]

the sun produces highly energetic photons that take 1M years to bounce around and be converted to the average 4000C light that is emitted by the surface. I have no problem seeing Earth's atmosphere slowing down escaping IR until it is converted into wavelengths that easily escape. my problem with AGW is the presumed positive feedbacks that do not agree with actual measurements.

you can argue little details and concoct scenarios which you imagine the laws of thermodynamics are being broken but you are hurting the anti-catastrophe side by acting like a lawyer trying to create doubt rather than a scientist trying to explain the evidence. CO2 back radiation doesnt 'warm' the Earth but slowing the cooling can, all other things being unchaged, which of course they are not. give the red herring of the second law of thermodynamics a rest. it doesnt apply in the manner that you say it does.

First, the myth that CO2 can warm, or cause the atmosphere to warm is not a "little" detail.

CO2 can not, does not, never has, nor never will drive the climate or cause the temperature of the planet to increase. The "blanket" hypothesis is as bad as the backradiation hypothesis and just as implausible. Let me try to explain.

"Human Body Emission

As all matter, the human body radiates some of a person's energy away as infrared light.

The net power radiated is the difference between the power emitted and the power absorbed:

Applying the Stefan Boltzman Law

The total surface area of an adult is about 2 m², and the mid- and far-infrared emissivity of skin and most clothing is near unity, as it is for most nonmetallic surfaces.[ Skin temperature is about 33 °C, but clothing reduces the surface temperature to about 28 °C when the ambient temperature is 20 °C. Hence, the net radiative heat loss is about

"

If you put a 20C blanket (which is colder) on a warmer 33C body, the surface temperature is going to reduce to about 28C. Heat flowed from the warmer body to the cooler blanket just as the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts.

It is true that the blanket will trap warm air between the body and itself, but that heat will not increase the temperature of the body. The atmosphere as a blanket hypothesis just doesn't work because your blanket is -20C.

What do you think happens when you wrap a -20C blanket around a -18C earth? Just as the surface temperature of a human body drops from 33C to 28C when you wrap a blanket around it, the earth's temperature will drop as well. Wrapping a -20C atmospheric blanket around it certainly won't cause its temperature to increase by nearly 33C up to 15C.

In either case, the blanket on your body or the atmosphere around the earth, a temperature increase of the body, or the earth would be a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Now if you care to try, feel free to explain how any amount of atmospheric CO2 in an atmosphere that averages -20C can cause the earth's -18C temperature (with the sun as its only energy source) to warm by 33C to 15C?

If you are going to try, provide some laws of physics to support your explanation.

 

[wirebender]

the sun produces highly energetic photons that take 1M years to bounce around and be converted to the average 4000C light that is emitted by the surface. I have no problem seeing Earth's atmosphere slowing down escaping IR until it is converted into wavelengths that easily escape.

Are you suggesting that the force of gravity of earth is approching the force of gravity to be found near the core of the sun?

What sort of senario is playing out in your mind that lets you imagine the forces at the core of the sun that might cause a photon to take a very long time to escape might play out in the atmosphere of the earth?

 

[RWatt]

That's true, here are some ground measurements of backradiation:

Again, the measurements are meaningless. Which part of the fact that the calculations used by the instruments assume that the instrument is being pointed at a blackbody radiating into a space that is zero degrees kelvin that you don't understand?

No they don't assume that. They are measuring incoming infrared radiation.

Man can do that. We have the tech to do it.

It isn't an impossible measurement to make as you seem to think.

Just as we can measure how much visible light is coming from a certain direction, so can we measure how much infrared light, or UV light or any other kind of light is coming from a certain direction.

And when scientists point instruments up at the sky, they detect large amounts of infrared coming down, and it's source must be the atmosphere itself.