CO2 Experiments posted here

[CrusaderFrank]

Try reading Section 8.1.2 of "Calculation of Radiative Forcing due to
Concentration or Emission Changes" at page 668 of AR5

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

^ Not an experiment

 

[Crick]

I never said it was. But it discusses dozens of peer reviewed studies. You obviously didn't read it. No surprise.

 

[jc456]

I never said it was. But it discusses dozens of peer reviewed studies. You obviously didn't read it. No surprise.

I'll bite, studies of what?

 

[Crick]

Studies relating to Calculation of Radiative Forcing due to
Concentration or Emission Changes. I would have thought that was obvious.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have no idea why...I only know that it is so because the physical law says it is so...Physical law also says that a dropped rock will fall to earth but we have no idea of how that mechanism works either...do you suppose that you have to know why in order to know that a thing happens? P is entirely dependent upon the temperature difference between the radiator and the surrounding atmosphere and the second law says that energy won't move spontaneously from cold to warm...I don't need to know how...I only need know what the laws say.

And why are you ignoring the above formula?
It says objects radiate according to their temperature.
So why are you right and this formula is wrong?

Is that the SB law?

Yes. You may have noticed it fails to mention the temperature of the surroundings.

The Stefan–Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan's law, states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body per unit time (known variously as the black-body irradiance, energy flux density, radiant flux, or the emissive power), j*, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T (also called absolute temperature):

A more general case is of a grey body, the one that doesn't absorb or emit the full amount of radiative flux. Instead, it radiates a portion of it, characterized by its emissivity, ε:

The irradiance j* has dimensions of energy flux (energy per time per area), and the SI units of measure are joules per second per square metre, or equivalently, watts per square metre. The SI unit for absolute temperature T is the kelvin. ε is the emissivity of the grey body; if it is a perfect blackbody, ε = 1. Still in more general (and realistic) case, the emissivity depends on the wavelength, ε = ε(λ).

Stefan–Boltzmann law

 

[SSDD]

I have no idea why...I only know that it is so because the physical law says it is so...Physical law also says that a dropped rock will fall to earth but we have no idea of how that mechanism works either...do you suppose that you have to know why in order to know that a thing happens? P is entirely dependent upon the temperature difference between the radiator and the surrounding atmosphere and the second law says that energy won't move spontaneously from cold to warm...I don't need to know how...I only need know what the laws say.

And why are you ignoring the above formula?
It says objects radiate according to their temperature.
So why are you right and this formula is wrong?

Is that the SB law?

Yes. You may have noticed it fails to mention the temperature of the surroundings.

The Stefan–Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan's law, states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body per unit time (known variously as the black-body irradiance, energy flux density, radiant flux, or the emissive power), j*, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T (also called absolute temperature):

A more general case is of a grey body, the one that doesn't absorb or emit the full amount of radiative flux. Instead, it radiates a portion of it, characterized by its emissivity, ε:

The irradiance j* has dimensions of energy flux (energy per time per area), and the SI units of measure are joules per second per square metre, or equivalently, watts per square metre. The SI unit for absolute temperature T is the kelvin. ε is the emissivity of the grey body; if it is a perfect blackbody, ε = 1. Still in more general (and realistic) case, the emissivity depends on the wavelength, ε = ε(λ).

Stefan–Boltzmann law

And according to your equation...what is the temperature of the radiator's surroundings... Does it have surroundings? Must not because the SB law says that P is dependent upon the difference between the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings.

 

[Crick]

Is it that you are intellectually incapable of understanding the concept of NET heat transfer or that your extreme bias and unwillingness to consider the possibility that you might be the stupidest fuck in town prevents you from actually taking in what people are telling you?

You need to separate two things:
1) All objects radiate thermal energy in all directions based solely on THEIR temperature
2) The NET heat transfer taking place for any given object is simply the algebraic sum of heat radiated away by an object and heat received from its surroundings.

You are conflating radiation and effective (or net) heat transfer.

You are doing that because you're the stupidest fuck in town.

 

[jc456]

Studies relating to Calculation of Radiative Forcing due to
Concentration or Emission Changes. I would have thought that was obvious.

But yet never measured!!! that constitutes no proof or evidence, and as such is merely a hypothesis. You have no theory!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I never said it was. But it discusses dozens of peer reviewed studies. You obviously didn't read it. No surprise.

Where's the lab work? The Evidence?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have no idea why...I only know that it is so because the physical law says it is so...Physical law also says that a dropped rock will fall to earth but we have no idea of how that mechanism works either...do you suppose that you have to know why in order to know that a thing happens? P is entirely dependent upon the temperature difference between the radiator and the surrounding atmosphere and the second law says that energy won't move spontaneously from cold to warm...I don't need to know how...I only need know what the laws say.

And why are you ignoring the above formula?
It says objects radiate according to their temperature.
So why are you right and this formula is wrong?

Is that the SB law?

Yes. You may have noticed it fails to mention the temperature of the surroundings.

The Stefan–Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan's law, states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body per unit time (known variously as the black-body irradiance, energy flux density, radiant flux, or the emissive power), j*, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T (also called absolute temperature):

A more general case is of a grey body, the one that doesn't absorb or emit the full amount of radiative flux. Instead, it radiates a portion of it, characterized by its emissivity, ε:

The irradiance j* has dimensions of energy flux (energy per time per area), and the SI units of measure are joules per second per square metre, or equivalently, watts per square metre. The SI unit for absolute temperature T is the kelvin. ε is the emissivity of the grey body; if it is a perfect blackbody, ε = 1. Still in more general (and realistic) case, the emissivity depends on the wavelength, ε = ε(λ).

Stefan–Boltzmann law

And according to your equation...what is the temperature of the radiator's surroundings... Does it have surroundings? Must not because the SB law says that P is dependent upon the difference between the temperature of the radiator and its surroundings.

And according to your equation

My equation? I think you mean the Stefan–Boltzmann law.

what is the temperature of the radiator's surroundings

Why do you ask? The Stefan–Boltzmann law doesn't say, "except", at least where I looked.
Are you saying that sometimes the Stefan–Boltzmann law is wrong?
You should submit a paper, you might win a Nobel!!

 

[Crick]

SSDD? Got an answer?

 

[IanC]

Anyone who has read the history of the study of thermodynamics knows that reality does not fit nicely into the equations. The discrepancies actually led Planck to invent a fudge factor that initiated quantum theory

 

[jc456]

Try reading Section 8.1.2 of "Calculation of Radiative Forcing due to
Concentration or Emission Changes" at page 668 of AR5

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

^ Not an experiment

Frank, ths isn't an experiment, but I think I can live with the conclusions. What say you?

Click for link
go to page 5 for the graph.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Try reading Section 8.1.2 of "Calculation of Radiative Forcing due to
Concentration or Emission Changes" at page 668 of AR5

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

^ Not an experiment

Frank, ths isn't an experiment, but I think I can live with the conclusions. What say you?

Click for link
go to page 5 for the graph.

"Hence, those who estimate climate sensitivity from recent data claim the paleological approach is
faulty, while those who use the paleological approach claim the approach based on
recent data is faulty. It seems that none of these estimates can be trusted..."

Love how the "Consensus" is off the charts when all the other data points are 2 orders of magnitude below

 

[jc456]

Try reading Section 8.1.2 of "Calculation of Radiative Forcing due to
Concentration or Emission Changes" at page 668 of AR5

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

^ Not an experiment

Frank, ths isn't an experiment, but I think I can live with the conclusions. What say you?

Click for link
go to page 5 for the graph.

"Hence, those who estimate climate sensitivity from recent data claim the paleological approach is
faulty, while those who use the paleological approach claim the approach based on
recent data is faulty. It seems that none of these estimates can be trusted..."

Love how the "Consensus" is off the charts when all the other data points are 2 orders of magnitude below

right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The HITRAN database, maintained by those socialists at the US Air Force, catalogs the spectral properties all all atmospheric gases.

HITRAN on the Web

Use the "references" link to get the many papers. That is, the lab setups.

The US Air Force data says that the "trace gas" CO2 has a big effect. But what do they know? They're just trying to make missiles work with IR seeker heads. Or maybe not. The Air Force must be sabotaging their own weapons in the name of the great socialist conspiracy.

^ That's not an experiment

You're right. It was literally hundreds of experiments, as described by the references. There were 19 references for CO2 alone.

And you're going to ignore all of it. That's why you're called deniers, because of the way you auto-deny any data that contradicts your cult's teachings.

Odd that you still haven't posted even one experiment

 

[Crick]

Odd that anyone can be as stupid as you've shown yourself to be over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

 

[SSDD]

Odd that anyone can be as stupid as you've shown yourself to be over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Plenty of bitterness and insult...no experiment. How predictable is that?

 

[Crick]

That I should find you stupid? Extremely predictable.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Odd that anyone can be as stupid as you've shown yourself to be over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

^ Not an Experiment.

Check the thread, I dare you to repost the "experiment"