Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[Toddsterpatriot]

The recent paper by Roy Clark, PhD also discusses the physics and concludes;
"Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR [long-wave infrared] flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the solar radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans." (p. 196). Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface cooling of the oceans."

Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface cooling of the oceans."

Oh no! That means downward LWIR is adding energy to the atmosphere.
That totally refutes the Greenhouse Effect......wait....what?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well Tod, I see you have found your peer level concerning science.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg

Empirical falsification of the denier meme. LOL

 

[IanC]

Well Tod, I see you have found your peer level concerning science.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg

Empirical falsification of the denier meme. LOL

Educated skeptics don't deny that there has been some warming. They disagree with how much. Satellites and radiosondes show less warming than surface stations, which in turn show less warming than climate models.

Educated skeptics don't deny that increased CO2 has a warming influence, they question the amount, and the significance compared to other factors.

The climate models are wrong. If more effort was being made to improve the models instead of trying to distort the data to fit the models we would be farther ahead in the game.

 

[Old Rocks]

Are they now? There prediction for the melt in the Arctic was way to conservative. The alpine glaciers have been melting faster than predicted. Many of the occurrences predicted for the end of the 21st century have already happened.

1981 Climate Change Predictions Were Eerily Accurate - Universe Today

Even though the paper was given 10 pages in Science, it covers a lot of advanced topics related to climate — indicating the level of knowledge known about climate science even at that time.

“The concepts and conclusions have not changed all that much,” van Oldenborgh and Haarsma note. “Hansen et al clearly indicate what was well known (all of which still stands today) and what was uncertain.”

Within the paper, several graphs note the growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide, both naturally occurring and manmade, and projected a future rise based on the continued use of fossil fuels by humans. Van Oldenborgh and Haarsma overlaid data gathered by NASA and KNMI in recent years and found that the projections made by Hansen et al. were pretty much spot-on.

If anything, the 1981 projections were “optimistic”.


Data from the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index fit rather closely with the 1981 projection (van Oldenborgh and Haarsma)

Hansen wrote in the original paper:

“The global temperature rose by 0.2ºC between the middle 1960’s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4ºC in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean rend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980’s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climate zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.”

 

[Billy_Bob]

Are they now? There prediction for the melt in the Arctic was way to conservative. The alpine glaciers have been melting faster than predicted. Many of the occurrences predicted for the end of the 21st century have already happened.

1981 Climate Change Predictions Were Eerily Accurate - Universe Today

Even though the paper was given 10 pages in Science, it covers a lot of advanced topics related to climate — indicating the level of knowledge known about climate science even at that time.

“The concepts and conclusions have not changed all that much,” van Oldenborgh and Haarsma note. “Hansen et al clearly indicate what was well known (all of which still stands today) and what was uncertain.”

Within the paper, several graphs note the growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide, both naturally occurring and manmade, and projected a future rise based on the continued use of fossil fuels by humans. Van Oldenborgh and Haarsma overlaid data gathered by NASA and KNMI in recent years and found that the projections made by Hansen et al. were pretty much spot-on.

If anything, the 1981 projections were “optimistic”.


Data from the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index fit rather closely with the 1981 projection (van Oldenborgh and Haarsma)

Hansen wrote in the original paper:

“The global temperature rose by 0.2ºC between the middle 1960’s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4ºC in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean rend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980’s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climate zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.”

The model was BACK CALIBRATED from 2012... so it erased the divergence.. The bull shit never ends with you..

 

[SSDD]

Throw a towel over your computer tower. In half an hour both the tower and the towel will be much warmer. The energy needed to warm both came from the energy not released into the environment.

If there was a power outage, turning off both the computer and heating to the room, everything would start to cool. But the computer would cool more slowly with the towel than without.

An easy experiment that anyone can do. The variations are endless.

An experiment that anyone can do...unfortunately, only a doofus of the first order would believe it was an example of a cool object making a warm object warmer..

You throw the towel over the computer and the computer starts losing heat to the towel, till such time as it is as warm as the computer..then you have two objects, in something like thermal equilibrium...one of which is blocking the convection of energy from the powered object.

You don't have a cool object causing a warm object to get warmer...

I noticed that you had two people who tagged your post as a winner...without even looking, let me guess...two of the biggest doofuses on the board...old rocks and toddster...am I right?

It is no wonder that you people have been duped so thoroughly...rocks by the AGW propaganda machine, and you and toddster by post modern physics. First class idiots..all of you.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The recent paper by Roy Clark, PhD also discusses the physics and concludes;
"Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR [long-wave infrared] flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the solar radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans." (p. 196). Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface cooling of the oceans."

Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface cooling of the oceans."

Oh no! That means downward LWIR is adding energy to the atmosphere.
That totally refutes the Greenhouse Effect......wait....what?

What is the wavelength of the energy ? Guess what, at 16um the temperature of your molecule is -80 deg F. What exactly are you going to warm Todd?

 

[SSDD]

Well Tod, I see you have found your peer level concerning science.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg

Empirical falsification of the denier meme. LOL

Let me guess, you believe that every other possible reason for the minor temperature increase that graph depicts...even with the massive amount of tampering, homogenization, and in-filling that it represents has been eliminated and only CO2 is left...and not just CO2...specifically our CO2.....I bet you really believe that which demonstrates conclusively that you are f'ing nuts.

Here, this is what the latest science is looking like...

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8536366/file/8536367

During the last 4000 years, particularly low [sea surface temperature] values occur at 3500-3300 cal yr BP and during the most recent decades, and high values persisted between 2400 and 1600 cal yr BP.

t is likely that the abrupt increases in SST around 3300-3200 and 2400-2200 cal yr BP participated in triggering the meltwater events at 3250-2700 and 2000-1200 cal yr BP, respectively. … [O]ur sediment record clearly shows that CDI outlet glaciers melted rapidly at 3250-2700 and 2000-1200 cal yr BP, but re-advanced to calving locations relatively soon afterwards (Neoglacial III and IV).

[T]he marked cooling of the last ~800 years may have very little to do with meltwater input and may rather represent the regional decrease in ocean temperatures during the last ~900 years (Caniupan et al., 2014).

Unraveling the forcings controlling the vegetation and climate of the best orbital analogues for the present interglacial in SW Europe

[T]he millennial-scale vegetation changes in SW Iberia under warm interglacial climate conditions might be essentially generated by hydrological changes primarily induced by insolation [solar variability], as they are reproduced in the simulations despite the absence of ice sheet dynamics and all associated feedbacks in our experiments.

The transient simulations under the combined effect of insolation and CO2 indicate that the interglacial vegetation and climate dynamics over SW Iberia have no apparent relationship to atmospheric CO2 concentration, as suggested by the pollen-based reconstructions. Although the direct impact of CO2 changes on the vegetation growth is not included in the model, a prominent example for this negligible CO2 forcing is given by its relatively high concentrations over the end of the interglacials, in particular for MIS 1 and MIS 11c, while the forest cover, annual temperature and annual precipitation achieved minimum values.

We find that the vegetation and climate changes at this time scale are mainly driven by astronomical forcing, in particular [solar] precession, in agreement with the strong impact of precession on the climate of the Mediterranean region south of 40°N.

And on and on it goes...get a clue.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well Tod, I see you have found your peer level concerning science.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg

Empirical falsification of the denier meme. LOL

Well Tod, I see you have found your peer level concerning science.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg

Empirical falsification of the denier meme. LOL

Well Tod, I see you have found your peer level concerning science.

Just because I'm mocking Billy's idiocy doesn't mean I want to waste trillions on windmills.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Throw a towel over your computer tower. In half an hour both the tower and the towel will be much warmer. The energy needed to warm both came from the energy not released into the environment.

If there was a power outage, turning off both the computer and heating to the room, everything would start to cool. But the computer would cool more slowly with the towel than without.

An easy experiment that anyone can do. The variations are endless.

An experiment that anyone can do...unfortunately, only a doofus of the first order would believe it was an example of a cool object making a warm object warmer..

You throw the towel over the computer and the computer starts losing heat to the towel, till such time as it is as warm as the computer..then you have two objects, in something like thermal equilibrium...one of which is blocking the convection of energy from the powered object.

You don't have a cool object causing a warm object to get warmer...

I noticed that you had two people who tagged your post as a winner...without even looking, let me guess...two of the biggest doofuses on the board...old rocks and toddster...am I right?

It is no wonder that you people have been duped so thoroughly...rocks by the AGW propaganda machine, and you and toddster by post modern physics. First class idiots..all of you.

An experiment that anyone can do...unfortunately, only a doofus of the first order would believe it was an example of a cool object making a warm object warmer..

Is the Earth warmer with an atmosphere than it would be without an atmosphere? Why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The recent paper by Roy Clark, PhD also discusses the physics and concludes;
"Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR [long-wave infrared] flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the solar radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans." (p. 196). Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface cooling of the oceans."

Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface cooling of the oceans."

Oh no! That means downward LWIR is adding energy to the atmosphere.
That totally refutes the Greenhouse Effect......wait....what?

What is the wavelength of the energy ? Guess what, at 16um the temperature of your molecule is -80 deg F. What exactly are you going to warm Todd?

Guess what, at 16um the temperature of your molecule is -80 deg F.

If the surface emits IR at 16um, it's -80F? DERP!

 

[IanC]

Throw a towel over your computer tower. In half an hour both the tower and the towel will be much warmer. The energy needed to warm both came from the energy not released into the environment.

If there was a power outage, turning off both the computer and heating to the room, everything would start to cool. But the computer would cool more slowly with the towel than without.

An easy experiment that anyone can do. The variations are endless.

An experiment that anyone can do...unfortunately, only a doofus of the first order would believe it was an example of a cool object making a warm object warmer..

You throw the towel over the computer and the computer starts losing heat to the towel, till such time as it is as warm as the computer..then you have two objects, in something like thermal equilibrium...one of which is blocking the convection of energy from the powered object.

You don't have a cool object causing a warm object to get warmer...

I noticed that you had two people who tagged your post as a winner...without even looking, let me guess...two of the biggest doofuses on the board...old rocks and toddster...am I right?

It is no wonder that you people have been duped so thoroughly...rocks by the AGW propaganda machine, and you and toddster by post modern physics. First class idiots..all of you.

???? Why do you say it is not a cool object making the warm object warmer.

Explain yourself in detail, and be prepared to defend your ideas.

What is making the tower warmer? The electricity? The impaired ability to lose energy? What exactly?

I have explicitly stated that it is the Sun that warms the surface, literally hundreds of times. If the surface loses any of its ability to shed heat, the temperature will get higher even though the solar input remains the same.

So, state your explanation. If it doesn't agree with my explanation then I will have some pointed criticisms for you to rebut. If it agrees with my explanation I will ask you why you have been claiming I am in error.

 

[IanC]

Both the warmer and cooler objects are radiating at all wavelengths between 5-50 microns.

How does the warm object recognize a 5 micron (hot) photon is coming from the cool object, and needs to be rejected?

Likewise, how does the cool object recognize a 50 micron (cold) photon from the warm object needs to be accepted?

Obviously there are no temperature labels on molecules or photons. Temperature is a quality of large groups of particles, not an individual particle.

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL..

Is energy present? yep it sure is.. However, just like the energy in your electrical socket on the wall, what it doesn't do is affect the earth like you think it does. Just like the energy in the wall socket, without a path to deliver that energy and create work nothing will warm...

Now I am supposed to believe a very narrow band of LWIR, that can not affect 73% of the earth surface positively, is going to raise temperatures...

Gawd I love this place... The shear ignorance is stunning... Ignore the physics at your own peril..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Well Tod, I see you have found your peer level concerning science.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg

Empirical falsification of the denier meme. LOL

Well Tod, I see you have found your peer level concerning science.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg

Empirical falsification of the denier meme. LOL

Well Tod, I see you have found your peer level concerning science.

Just because I'm mocking Billy's idiocy doesn't mean I want to waste trillions on windmills.

Idiocy is when you don't look at the energy in the wave length and assume it can warm something that is at a much higher energy level.. A less energetic photon, by QM, can not affect a more energetic molecule... but hey keep on keep'in on....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

LOL..

Is energy present? yep it sure is.. However, just like the energy in your electrical socket on the wall, what it doesn't do is affect the earth like you think it does. Just like the energy in the wall socket, without a path to deliver that energy and create work nothing will warm...

Now I am supposed to believe a very narrow band of LWIR, that can not affect 73% of the earth surface positively, is going to raise temperatures...

Gawd I love this place... The shear ignorance is stunning... Ignore the physics at your own peril..

Is energy present? yep it sure is.. However, just like the energy in your electrical socket on the wall, what it doesn't do is affect the earth like you think it does.

Absorbed photons don't affect the Earth?

Now I am supposed to believe a very narrow band of LWIR, that can not affect 73% of the earth surface positively

You said it causes water to evaporate. That's not a positive change?

Gawd I love this place... The shear ignorance is stunning

Yes, your sheer ignorance is massive.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well Tod, I see you have found your peer level concerning science.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg

Empirical falsification of the denier meme. LOL

Well Tod, I see you have found your peer level concerning science.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg

Empirical falsification of the denier meme. LOL

Well Tod, I see you have found your peer level concerning science.

Just because I'm mocking Billy's idiocy doesn't mean I want to waste trillions on windmills.

Idiocy is when you don't look at the energy in the wave length and assume it can warm something that is at a much higher energy level.. A less energetic photon, by QM, can not affect a more energetic molecule... but hey keep on keep'in on....

A less energetic photon, by QM, can not affect a more energetic molecule

Right. So a photon from 60 degree matter avoids 70 degree matter?
Isn't emitted toward 70 degree matter? Isn't absorbed by 70 degree matter?
Or gets absorbed but doesn't change anything at 70 degrees?

 

[IanC]

Let's discuss passive and active thermodynamics some more. With another mind experiment! Hahahaha.

We need a cannon ball with a one square metre surface area. Inside it is a heater that can be powered by an outside power source.

First we check the passive loss of energy to the environment. To do this we need to heat the cannonball in an oven until it reaches a consistent temperature throughout that produces a surface radiation of 500w per metre squared. By doing this we have reduced entropy and enforced order to the object. There is a fixed amount of energy present in the cannonball.

When we take the cannonball out it will be radiating at 500w and immediately starts to cool at the surface (ignore the temperature of the environment, it affects the rate of cooling but not the direction). The interior of the cannonball is not yet cooling because it is surrounded by material at the same temperature and there is no place for the energy to escape to.

After the the surface cools a bit the next layer in has a place for the energy to migrate to. A temperature gradient has begun to form. This migration of energy continues, with a temperature gradient, until all of the excess energy has been released and the cannonball is the same temperature as the environment.

The surface cooling can be enhanced by using conduction instead of just radiation, but that is a change in the environment not the cannonball. If the environment is a fluid and a gravity field is present then convection will also enhance the cooling. Again, a change in environment not the cannonball.

So, what happens if we turn on the 500w heater when we remove the cannonball from the oven? The surface still cools, forming a temperature gradient. As the surface cools it is radiating less than 500w. There is now an imbalance. The 500w heater is warming the interior, also causing a temperature gradient. These two gradients continue to grow until they meet each other. The warming gradient wins out because it has a constant input of energy and will eventually come to equilibrium when the gradient reaches the surface and the 500w loss matches the 500w input. But there is much more energy in the cannonball. Every layer inside the cannonball is warmer than the next outer one.

This little mind experiment illustrates the need to account for the energy stored in the system, rather than just the inputs and outputs once equilibrium has been reached.

Our atmosphere stores a huge amount of energy. This stored energy is the reason why the surface is much warmer than the solar input could maintain by itself.

 

[IanC]

Well Tod, I see you have found your peer level concerning science.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg

Empirical falsification of the denier meme. LOL

Well Tod, I see you have found your peer level concerning science.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg

Empirical falsification of the denier meme. LOL

Well Tod, I see you have found your peer level concerning science.

Just because I'm mocking Billy's idiocy doesn't mean I want to waste trillions on windmills.

Idiocy is when you don't look at the energy in the wave length and assume it can warm something that is at a much higher energy level.. A less energetic photon, by QM, can not affect a more energetic molecule... but hey keep on keep'in on....

You have not defined your terms.

What do you mean by an energetic molecule? Kinetic speed is irrelevant to the absorption of a photon. The molecule can either absorb a photon or it can't.

Temperature is important to emission of photons. The speed at which molecules collide determines how much energy is available to be converted into a photon. A head on collision between two fast moving molecules can produce a higher energy photon than a glancing blow between two slower moving ones.

That is why there is a wide range of radiation produced by a substance at any temperature.

 

[mamooth]

Individual molecules don't have a "temperature". Temperature is a statistical property of a collection of molecules. In any collection of gas or liquid molecules at a given temperature, some will be moving more slowly, some more quickly.

That makes the SSDD/BillyBob theory even more peculiar. In their theory, the slower moving molecules in a hotter gas somehow know that their neighboring molecules are moving faster, and thus those slower molecules know they also need to reject the slightly lower energy photons. Or is it the other way, that emitter molecules know not to emit towards the slower individual molecules in a hotter gas? In any case, the molecules show intelligence on multiple levels.

Billy and SSDD need to quantify their new theory exactly. Specifically, is the intelligence with the emitter or receiver?

Does each emitter-molecule know not to emit if a receiver-mass of temperature warmer than the emitter-mass will be in the emission path at some point in the future?

Or does each receiver-molecule know not to receive if the receiver-mass is warmer than the emitter-mass which the photon came from?

We need to know if the actual photons are flying through space or not, at which point we can continue the discussion.