CO2 Experiments posted here

[Crick]

Read AR5. You obviously haven't touched it yet.

 

[SSDD]

No answer to the points I made regarding AR5? Typical. Nothing but insult and ad hominem...and dogma from you. Like I said, you become more like rolling thunder every day....when might you start posting in big red letters thinking that makes your statements more credible?

 

[Crick]

Read AR5, then someone might actually pay some attention to your comments.

Might...

 

[SSDD]

Read AR5, then someone might actually pay some attention to your comments.

Might...

The number of questions hanging out there that you are unable to answer is growing crick...My points were specifically regarding AR5 and you aren't answering...what's the matter? Got yourself painted into a corner and see no exit?

 

[Crick]

I have not seen you make any meaningful points about AR5 (or its four predecessors). I have yet to see any evidence that you've read one word of it or that - were you to do so - you'd understand a word of it as your science misconceptions are simply too comprehensive and too profound to allow you to make any real progress on any science topic.

 

[SSDD]

I have not seen you make any meaningful points about AR5 (or its four predecessors). I have yet to see any evidence that you've read one word of it or that - were you to do so - you'd understand a word of it as your science misconceptions are simply too comprehensive and too profound to allow you to make any real progress on any science topic.

Sorry you can't read....

 

[Crick]

I think you've gotten that turned around. You're the one failing to do the required reading. If you want to tell us what you find wrong with AR5, you're going to have to read it first.

And vague generalities aren't going anywhere. If you want to take AR5 down, we're going to need specifics.

 

[jc456]

I think you've gotten that turned around. You're the one failing to do the required reading. If you want to tell us what you find wrong with AR5, you're going to have to read it first.

And vague generalities aren't going anywhere. If you want to take AR5 down, we're going to need specifics.

And yet still no experiment. AR5 has no experiment, there were no measurements taken. Why don't you read it? You may just learn something about the IPCC's errors.

 

[SSDD]

I think you've gotten that turned around. You're the one failing to do the required reading. If you want to tell us what you find wrong with AR5, you're going to have to read it first.

And vague generalities aren't going anywhere. If you want to take AR5 down, we're going to need specifics.

Here are just a few things wrong with it...to go into depth would require shredding the entire worthless steaming pile of crap...You can start with these....

• AR4 (2007): “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century isvery likely (>90% confidence)due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases.” (SPM AR4)

• AR5 (2013) SPM: “It is extremely likely(>95% confidence)that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century .” (SPM AR5)

All that increased confidence even though: 1) there has been a lack of warming since 1998 and the discrepancies between model projections and observations are growing....2) growing evidence of less climate sensitivity to increases in CO2....3) evidence that sea level rise between 1920 and 1950 is of the same magnitude as between 1993 and 2012....4) increasing antarctic sea ice....5) low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to AGW.....6) failure of arctic sea ice to continue to decrease...

Consider the fact that the IPCC can't even begin to convincingly explain why the warming stopped and any thinking person has more than enough reason to take anything from the IPCC with a very large grain of salt.

 

[Crick]

The difference between you and the IPCC is that they actually explain why the come to the conclusions they do. Have you read them? This is no better than your prior comments. You pull these quotes out of context and then toss a handful of denier soundbytes at them.

How about some links to research supporting the positions your pushing here?

1) there has been a lack of warming since 1998 and the discrepancies between model projections and observations are growing
2) growing evidence of less climate sensitivity to increases in CO2
3) evidence that sea level rise between 1920 and 1950 is of the same magnitude as between 1993 and 2012
4) increasing antarctic sea ice
5) low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to AGW
6) failure of arctic sea ice to continue to decrease...

"1) there has been a lack of warming since 1998 and the discrepancies between model projections and observations are growing"

Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projections Nature Climate Change Nature Publishing Group

Estimates of impacts from anthropogenic climate change rely on projections from climate models. Uncertainties in those have often been a limiting factor, in particular on local scales. A new generation of more complex models running scenarios for the upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC AR5) is widely, and perhaps naively, expected to provide more detailed and more certain projections. Here we show that projected global temperature change from the new models is remarkably similar to that from those used in IPCC AR4 after accounting for the different underlying scenarios. The spatial patterns of temperature and precipitation change are also very consistent. Interestingly, the local model spread has not changed much despite substantial model development and a massive increase in computational capacity. Part of this model spread is irreducible owing to internal variability in the climate system, yet there is also uncertainty from model differences that can potentially be eliminated. We argue that defining progress in climate modelling in terms of narrowing uncertainties is too limited. Models improve, representing more processes in greater detail. This implies greater confidence in their projections, but convergence may remain slow. The uncertainties should not stop decisions being made.

This indicates progress has been restricted to increased confidence in projections; these models, despite increased complexity and large increases in computational effort, still suffer shortfalls in regional accuracy. Part of that cannot be reduced as it results from internal variability (chaotic, indeterminate processes). So, while models have not grown significantly more accurate, they have not - as you claimed - gotten worse.

"2) growing evidence of less climate sensitivity to increases in CO2"

The upper end of the range of estimates was lower in AR5 than in AR4. Given the size of the range in 4 (and to a great extent still in 5) it is obvious that the value is the sum of a number of complex processes, some not well understood. The primary factor behind the spread of values arrived at by different GCMs is cloud responses (see 8.6.2.3 What Explains the Current Spread in Models Climate Sensitivity Estimates - AR4 WGI Chapter 8 Climate Models and their Evaluation. The lower end of the range has not dropped and there isn't the slightest suggestion, as you have contended, that all those non-RF "magic multipliers" might fail to show up.

I've had enough for tonight. I'll get back sometime later.

 

[Crick]

I think I'll carry on in brief here.

4) The IPCC has never attempted to hide or belittle the increase in Antarctic sea ice. It is clearly reported and thoroughly discussed. And, of course, you ignore the now irreversible destabilization of the entire WAIS.

5) The IPCC has never expressed high confidence relating extreme weather events to global warming. They have repeatedly stated that increasing temperatures will cause an increase in the severity of weather events. If you disagree with that point, I'd like to hear your justification.

6) Arctic sea ice has continued to decrease.

 

[SSDD]

As usual, everything you write is a lie....the IPCC predicted rapidly decreasing antarctic ice...your temperature graphs are a joke because they represent nothing more than the degree to which climate science is willing to tamper with data for grant money...arctic ice is on the increase...and the IPCC did predict increased extreme weather due to climate change....

 

[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!!

Still working on your smart wave theory?
How does the hotter object know to emit faster to a 50K object than a 100K object?
We're waiting.

 

[IanC]

Todd- you will never get SSDD to give up his cherished but archaic version of thermodynamics. They were written before the modern concept of photons was developed. He cannot grasp the idea of quantum mechanics so he rejects anything he cannot 'see'. Photons can't interact with each other except in the presence of matter so he gives them the qualities of matter, when he isn't denying the existence of photons altogether.

Photons do not cancel each other out. They are formed by a bit of matter and exist until they interact with another bit of matter.
It is a much simpler reality if everything radiates according to its own available energy but I suppose we cannot rule out SSDD's version of Maxwell's Daemon knowing the temperature and position of every particle in the universe before allowing interactions to take place.

 

[SSDD]

Todd- you will never get SSDD to give up his cherished but archaic version of thermodynamics. They were written before the modern concept of photons was developed. He cannot grasp the idea of quantum mechanics so he rejects anything he cannot 'see'. Photons can't interact with each other except in the presence of matter so he gives them the qualities of matter, when he isn't denying the existence of photons altogether.

Photons do not cancel each other out. They are formed by a bit of matter and exist until they interact with another bit of matter.
It is a much simpler reality if everything radiates according to its own available energy but I suppose we cannot rule out SSDD's version of Maxwell's Daemon knowing the temperature and position of every particle in the universe before allowing interactions to take place.

Ian, if the day ever comes when we actually know what is going on at the atomic level...really...what do you think the chances are that we find that what is happening is just like what you described? Look at history... best guesses which is, in reality, what QM is, rarely if ever bear much resemblance to reality. I am sure that some day the initial guesses resulting from QM will be looked back on as quaint, but naive baby steps on the path to knowledge...but certainly nothing worth putting the sort of personal investment you have placed in your beliefs.

You act as if you actually believe what you say to be true and have divorced yourself entirely from the glaring fact that we just don't know....my bet is that the reality will be far closer to what we can observe and what we observe, every time is that energy doesn't move from cool to warm.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd- you will never get SSDD to give up his cherished but archaic version of thermodynamics. They were written before the modern concept of photons was developed. He cannot grasp the idea of quantum mechanics so he rejects anything he cannot 'see'. Photons can't interact with each other except in the presence of matter so he gives them the qualities of matter, when he isn't denying the existence of photons altogether.

Photons do not cancel each other out. They are formed by a bit of matter and exist until they interact with another bit of matter.
It is a much simpler reality if everything radiates according to its own available energy but I suppose we cannot rule out SSDD's version of Maxwell's Daemon knowing the temperature and position of every particle in the universe before allowing interactions to take place.

Ian, if the day ever comes when we actually know what is going on at the atomic level...really...what do you think the chances are that we find that what is happening is just like what you described? Look at history... best guesses which is, in reality, what QM is, rarely if ever bear much resemblance to reality. I am sure that some day the initial guesses resulting from QM will be looked back on as quaint, but naive baby steps on the path to knowledge...but certainly nothing worth putting the sort of personal investment you have placed in your beliefs.

You act as if you actually believe what you say to be true and have divorced yourself entirely from the glaring fact that we just don't know....my bet is that the reality will be far closer to what we can observe and what we observe, every time is that energy doesn't move from cool to warm.

energy doesn't move from cool to warm

Then why does a hot object radiate faster to a 50K nearby object than to a 100K nearby object?

 

[SSDD]

Todd- you will never get SSDD to give up his cherished but archaic version of thermodynamics. They were written before the modern concept of photons was developed. He cannot grasp the idea of quantum mechanics so he rejects anything he cannot 'see'. Photons can't interact with each other except in the presence of matter so he gives them the qualities of matter, when he isn't denying the existence of photons altogether.

Photons do not cancel each other out. They are formed by a bit of matter and exist until they interact with another bit of matter.
It is a much simpler reality if everything radiates according to its own available energy but I suppose we cannot rule out SSDD's version of Maxwell's Daemon knowing the temperature and position of every particle in the universe before allowing interactions to take place.

Ian, if the day ever comes when we actually know what is going on at the atomic level...really...what do you think the chances are that we find that what is happening is just like what you described? Look at history... best guesses which is, in reality, what QM is, rarely if ever bear much resemblance to reality. I am sure that some day the initial guesses resulting from QM will be looked back on as quaint, but naive baby steps on the path to knowledge...but certainly nothing worth putting the sort of personal investment you have placed in your beliefs.

You act as if you actually believe what you say to be true and have divorced yourself entirely from the glaring fact that we just don't know....my bet is that the reality will be far closer to what we can observe and what we observe, every time is that energy doesn't move from cool to warm.

energy doesn't move from cool to warm

Then why does a hot object radiate faster to a 50K nearby object than to a 100K nearby object?

You keep asking the same stupid question....if you wonder look at the SB equation...the amount of radiation an object emits is determined by the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...The greater the difference between the radiator and its surroundings the larger P will be. The larger P is, the more energy the object is radiating.

If you don't get that...sorry. Maybe some night courses would help.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd- you will never get SSDD to give up his cherished but archaic version of thermodynamics. They were written before the modern concept of photons was developed. He cannot grasp the idea of quantum mechanics so he rejects anything he cannot 'see'. Photons can't interact with each other except in the presence of matter so he gives them the qualities of matter, when he isn't denying the existence of photons altogether.

Photons do not cancel each other out. They are formed by a bit of matter and exist until they interact with another bit of matter.
It is a much simpler reality if everything radiates according to its own available energy but I suppose we cannot rule out SSDD's version of Maxwell's Daemon knowing the temperature and position of every particle in the universe before allowing interactions to take place.

Ian, if the day ever comes when we actually know what is going on at the atomic level...really...what do you think the chances are that we find that what is happening is just like what you described? Look at history... best guesses which is, in reality, what QM is, rarely if ever bear much resemblance to reality. I am sure that some day the initial guesses resulting from QM will be looked back on as quaint, but naive baby steps on the path to knowledge...but certainly nothing worth putting the sort of personal investment you have placed in your beliefs.

You act as if you actually believe what you say to be true and have divorced yourself entirely from the glaring fact that we just don't know....my bet is that the reality will be far closer to what we can observe and what we observe, every time is that energy doesn't move from cool to warm.

energy doesn't move from cool to warm

Then why does a hot object radiate faster to a 50K nearby object than to a 100K nearby object?

You keep asking the same stupid question....if you wonder look at the SB equation...the amount of radiation an object emits is determined by the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...The greater the difference between the radiator and its surroundings the larger P will be. The larger P is, the more energy the object is radiating.

If you don't get that...sorry. Maybe some night courses would help.

You keep asking the same stupid question

And you can't answer. Because your feeling about energy doesn't match reality.

if you wonder look at the SB equation...the amount of radiation an object emits is determined by the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...

I know the equation, I'm looking for your smart wave explanation.
My explanation matches the equation, yours, not so much.

If you don't get that...sorry. Maybe some night courses would help.

 

[IanC]

Todd- you will never get SSDD to give up his cherished but archaic version of thermodynamics. They were written before the modern concept of photons was developed. He cannot grasp the idea of quantum mechanics so he rejects anything he cannot 'see'. Photons can't interact with each other except in the presence of matter so he gives them the qualities of matter, when he isn't denying the existence of photons altogether.

Photons do not cancel each other out. They are formed by a bit of matter and exist until they interact with another bit of matter.
It is a much simpler reality if everything radiates according to its own available energy but I suppose we cannot rule out SSDD's version of Maxwell's Daemon knowing the temperature and position of every particle in the universe before allowing interactions to take place.

Ian, if the day ever comes when we actually know what is going on at the atomic level...really...what do you think the chances are that we find that what is happening is just like what you described? Look at history... best guesses which is, in reality, what QM is, rarely if ever bear much resemblance to reality. I am sure that some day the initial guesses resulting from QM will be looked back on as quaint, but naive baby steps on the path to knowledge...but certainly nothing worth putting the sort of personal investment you have placed in your beliefs.

You act as if you actually believe what you say to be true and have divorced yourself entirely from the glaring fact that we just don't know....my bet is that the reality will be far closer to what we can observe and what we observe, every time is that energy doesn't move from cool to warm.

energy doesn't move from cool to warm

Then why does a hot object radiate faster to a 50K nearby object than to a 100K nearby object?

Obviously the hot object radiates exactly the same amount towardss both the 50K and 100K objects. Bcause it is getting less back radiation from the cooler one, the net energy transfer is greater. If all the objects were the same temp the radiation would still be the same but there would be no net flow.