Evidence supporting AGW

[SSDD]

You still seem to be claiming that the atmosphere of Venus radiates 16kw/m2 up but almost nothing down. Care to explain?

Sure..as soon as you explain how 135 watts gets converted to 16k in the first place since it clearly isn't due to any greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

Any luck finding the flaw in the Stefan Boltzmann Law, or are you still clinging to your 2nd Law fallacy?

Pressure is king on venus...if our atmosphere weighed 100 times more than it does even with the same proportions of gas...it would be hot as hell here as well...pressure...not some pie in the sky politically motivated non physical, unobservable, unmeasurable, unquantifiable greenhouse effect.

The ideal gas law works in a sealed container.
Trying to prove a similar precise ratio in an atmospheric environment is silly.

No luck finding a flaw in the Stefan Boltzmann Law? Ready to admit your long-running error?

The only flaw regarding the SB law is your misconception that it describes a one way gross flow of energy...not a two way net flow.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD - I am one who has said from the beginning that pressure is a factor in surface temperature. But it is not the only factor. This planet is in near equilibrium so pressure is no longer the important influence in small changes. But the escape of surface radiation is. How warm the atmosphere is, and how opaque it is to the relevant wavelengths is more important than the pressure.

If the 16kW on Venus were free to escape then the surface there would quickly cool.likewise with earth. CO2 interferes with the escape of radiation here but it is only one factor out of many so its effect is small but real.

Check Maxwell Ian....he said (but didn't prove) that while such equilibrium might happen in static columns of air, it could never happen in an atmosphere...not the atmosphere here on earth and certainly not in an atmosphere as unsettled as that of venus...

”This result is by no means applicable to the case of our atmosphere. Setting aside the enormous direct effect of the sun’s radiation in disturbing thermal equilibrium, the effect of winds in carrying large masses of air from one height to another tends to produce a distribution of temperature of a quite different kind, the temperature at any height being such that a mass of air, brought from one height to another without gaining or losing heat, would always find itself at the temperature of the surrounding air. In this condition of what Sir William Thomson has called the convective equilibrium of heat, it is not the temperature which is constant, but the quantity ϕ [entropy], which determines the adiabatic curves.

And Graeff has demonstrated experimentally that the temperature of a static column of air does not reach an equilibrium where the top and bottom are the same temperature.


CO2 does not interfere with the escape of radiation here...it is just goofy to claim that the presence of a radiative gas will decrease the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.

 

[Crick]

If everyone (EVERYONE) told me I was wrong about something, I'd have a look. But not you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You still seem to be claiming that the atmosphere of Venus radiates 16kw/m2 up but almost nothing down. Care to explain?

Sure..as soon as you explain how 135 watts gets converted to 16k in the first place since it clearly isn't due to any greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

Any luck finding the flaw in the Stefan Boltzmann Law, or are you still clinging to your 2nd Law fallacy?

Pressure is king on venus...if our atmosphere weighed 100 times more than it does even with the same proportions of gas...it would be hot as hell here as well...pressure...not some pie in the sky politically motivated non physical, unobservable, unmeasurable, unquantifiable greenhouse effect.

The ideal gas law works in a sealed container.
Trying to prove a similar precise ratio in an atmospheric environment is silly.

No luck finding a flaw in the Stefan Boltzmann Law? Ready to admit your long-running error?

The only flaw regarding the SB law is your misconception that it describes a one way gross flow of energy...not a two way net flow.

One way flow is your claim. Which requires smart waves.
The Stefan Boltzmann Law doesn't require smart waves.
Doesn't require objects to suddenly stop or start radiating.
Doesn't show that an object can radiate out of one side and not the other.
In other words, it actually works, unlike your confused mismash.

Explain again why -50C surroundings make a hot object cool faster than 50C surroundings.
Without smart waves.

 

[jc456]

Not that I want to get involved with the debate between you both, but reading the last post by Todd, I thought perhaps I could say one thing on the subject. In the winter when temperatures are below freezing, homes turn on their furnaces to warm the interiors of the homes, and the windows on the outside might ice up. If cold didn't move toward warm, I'm not sure I understand why that would happen. As well, when I am inside in my nice comfortable room, if I put my hand near the window, I will feel cold air. I thought perhaps this might lend a hand in an example of cold moving toward warm. If not, I stand down.

 

[haissem123]

is there any one, knowing undoubtedly that we have been duping ootles of carbon gas into the closed atmosphere, that denies it must have an affect of some kind? We have been greatly changing the make up of our atmosphere, how couldn't it have an affect? seriously?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not that I want to get involved with the debate between you both, but reading the last post by Todd, I thought perhaps I could say one thing on the subject. In the winter when temperatures are below freezing, homes turn on their furnaces to warm the interiors of the homes, and the windows on the outside might ice up. If cold didn't move toward warm, I'm not sure I understand why that would happen. As well, when I am inside in my nice comfortable room, if I put my hand near the window, I will feel cold air. I thought perhaps this might lend a hand in an example of cold moving toward warm. If not, I stand down.

Yes, you should stand down.

 

[SSDD]

Not that I want to get involved with the debate between you both, but reading the last post by Todd, I thought perhaps I could say one thing on the subject. In the winter when temperatures are below freezing, homes turn on their furnaces to warm the interiors of the homes, and the windows on the outside might ice up. If cold didn't move toward warm, I'm not sure I understand why that would happen. As well, when I am inside in my nice comfortable room, if I put my hand near the window, I will feel cold air. I thought perhaps this might lend a hand in an example of cold moving toward warm. If not, I stand down.

It isn't cold moving towards warm...it is you bleeding heat to the cold. If energy moved from cool to warm, any energy at all, your surface temperature would rise...it doesn't...the cold you feel is your own warmth radiating away towards the cold.

 

[SSDD]

is there any one, knowing undoubtedly that we have been duping ootles of carbon gas into the closed atmosphere, that denies it must have an affect of some kind? We have been greatly changing the make up of our atmosphere, how couldn't it have an affect? seriously?

I suppose the very small amount we have put in the atmosphere may increase the weight of the atmosphere by some unmeasurably small amount and that might result in some unmeasurably small increase in temperature due to pressure...but that is all. You seem to to fully grasp how small our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is....Here stop being a dupe and have a look what our CO2 actually looks like in the big picture......

 

[SSDD]

One way flow is your claim.

Pardon my typo...and smart waves are your idiot invention...one way energy flow doesn't require smart waves to radiate from warm to cool any more than gravity requires smart rocks to fall down.

 

[SSDD]

If everyone (EVERYONE) told me I was wrong about something, I'd have a look. But not you.

I keep asking for someone to give me a look...how many times have I asked for an actual observed, measured example of energy spontaneously radiating from a cool object to a warm object? I ask over and over and you don't seem to be able to produce a single example while every observation ever made supports my position...why would I believe you when every observation ever made says I am right and exactly zero observations say that you are right?

 

[haissem123]

is there any one, knowing undoubtedly that we have been duping ootles of carbon gas into the closed atmosphere, that denies it must have an affect of some kind? We have been greatly changing the make up of our atmosphere, how couldn't it have an affect? seriously?

I suppose the very small amount we have put in the atmosphere may increase the weight of the atmosphere by some unmeasurably small amount and that might result in some unmeasurably small increase in temperature due to pressure...but that is all. You seem to to fully grasp how small our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is....Here stop being a dupe and have a look what our CO2 actually looks like in the big picture......

wow she is a very intelligent first grade teacher. What does this have to do with anything? Where are her facts from? Bush's texas changed text books? Not to mention, ,increasing your cianide intake by four parts per million could have a big affect. I don't follow nor believe this silly video made by what you believe is over paid teachers. This would have been better if you put a few phds in front of her name and told me how much they were making off oil stocks. lool

 

[SSDD]

is there any one, knowing undoubtedly that we have been duping ootles of carbon gas into the closed atmosphere, that denies it must have an affect of some kind? We have been greatly changing the make up of our atmosphere, how couldn't it have an affect? seriously?

I suppose the very small amount we have put in the atmosphere may increase the weight of the atmosphere by some unmeasurably small amount and that might result in some unmeasurably small increase in temperature due to pressure...but that is all. You seem to to fully grasp how small our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is....Here stop being a dupe and have a look what our CO2 actually looks like in the big picture......

wow she is a very intelligent first grade teacher. What does this have to do with anything? Where are her facts from? Bush's texas changed text books? Not to mention, ,increasing your cianide intake by four parts per million could have a big affect. I don't follow nor believe this silly video made by what you believe is over paid teachers. This would have been better if you put a few phds in front of her name and told me how much they were making off oil stocks. lool

Do feel free to prove that her numbers are wrong....you will find that if you actually take the time to check something rather than simply go with the typical warmer knee jerk response...her numbers are dead on.

As to cyanide...are you really going to try to compare CO2...a molecule that every life on earth requires with cyanide? Really? Guess you have already drunk to much of the koolaid for any amount of fact to sway you. Congratulations...you are truly a dupe.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not that I want to get involved with the debate between you both, but reading the last post by Todd, I thought perhaps I could say one thing on the subject. In the winter when temperatures are below freezing, homes turn on their furnaces to warm the interiors of the homes, and the windows on the outside might ice up. If cold didn't move toward warm, I'm not sure I understand why that would happen. As well, when I am inside in my nice comfortable room, if I put my hand near the window, I will feel cold air. I thought perhaps this might lend a hand in an example of cold moving toward warm. If not, I stand down.

It isn't cold moving towards warm...it is you bleeding heat to the cold. If energy moved from cool to warm, any energy at all, your surface temperature would rise...it doesn't...the cold you feel is your own warmth radiating away towards the cold.

If energy moved from cool to warm, any energy at all, your surface temperature would rise...

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law proves you're wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One way flow is your claim.

Pardon my typo...and smart waves are your idiot invention...one way energy flow doesn't require smart waves to radiate from warm to cool any more than gravity requires smart rocks to fall down.

one way energy flow doesn't require smart waves to radiate from warm to cool

Your theory does require smart waves.
An object needs to stop radiating, instantly, according to your theory, if a warmer object approaches.
An object needs to radiate more slowly, if the surroundings are 100K than if they are 50K.
If your mechanism isn't smart waves, I await your better explanation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If everyone (EVERYONE) told me I was wrong about something, I'd have a look. But not you.

I keep asking for someone to give me a look...how many times have I asked for an actual observed, measured example of energy spontaneously radiating from a cool object to a warm object? I ask over and over and you don't seem to be able to produce a single example while every observation ever made supports my position...why would I believe you when every observation ever made says I am right and exactly zero observations say that you are right?

Why do you keep ignoring the 1963 article in Science?

a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

You can plug those temperatures into the Stefan-Boltzmann formula and see for yourself.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

is there any one, knowing undoubtedly that we have been duping ootles of carbon gas into the closed atmosphere, that denies it must have an affect of some kind? We have been greatly changing the make up of our atmosphere, how couldn't it have an affect? seriously?

I suppose the very small amount we have put in the atmosphere may increase the weight of the atmosphere by some unmeasurably small amount and that might result in some unmeasurably small increase in temperature due to pressure...but that is all. You seem to to fully grasp how small our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is....Here stop being a dupe and have a look what our CO2 actually looks like in the big picture......

wow she is a very intelligent first grade teacher. What does this have to do with anything? Where are her facts from? Bush's texas changed text books? Not to mention, ,increasing your cianide intake by four parts per million could have a big affect. I don't follow nor believe this silly video made by what you believe is over paid teachers. This would have been better if you put a few phds in front of her name and told me how much they were making off oil stocks. lool

CO2, the new cyanide

The AGWCult, membership limited only by your gullibility and ability to lie on a 24/7 basis

 

[haissem123]

is there any one, knowing undoubtedly that we have been duping ootles of carbon gas into the closed atmosphere, that denies it must have an affect of some kind? We have been greatly changing the make up of our atmosphere, how couldn't it have an affect? seriously?

I suppose the very small amount we have put in the atmosphere may increase the weight of the atmosphere by some unmeasurably small amount and that might result in some unmeasurably small increase in temperature due to pressure...but that is all. You seem to to fully grasp how small our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is....Here stop being a dupe and have a look what our CO2 actually looks like in the big picture......

wow she is a very intelligent first grade teacher. What does this have to do with anything? Where are her facts from? Bush's texas changed text books? Not to mention, ,increasing your cianide intake by four parts per million could have a big affect. I don't follow nor believe this silly video made by what you believe is over paid teachers. This would have been better if you put a few phds in front of her name and told me how much they were making off oil stocks. lool

CO2, the new cyanide

The AGWCult, membership limited only by your gullibility and ability to lie on a 24/7 basis

i was pointing out that part per million is relevant to the substances affect you babbling moron. go back to this third grade teacher and learn that ;poisons and toxins with carbon monoxide and dioxide are have negative affects even at low levels. ie asthma rate rising etc...

 

[jc456]

is there any one, knowing undoubtedly that we have been duping ootles of carbon gas into the closed atmosphere, that denies it must have an affect of some kind? We have been greatly changing the make up of our atmosphere, how couldn't it have an affect? seriously?

I suppose the very small amount we have put in the atmosphere may increase the weight of the atmosphere by some unmeasurably small amount and that might result in some unmeasurably small increase in temperature due to pressure...but that is all. You seem to to fully grasp how small our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is....Here stop being a dupe and have a look what our CO2 actually looks like in the big picture......

wow she is a very intelligent first grade teacher. What does this have to do with anything? Where are her facts from? Bush's texas changed text books? Not to mention, ,increasing your cianide intake by four parts per million could have a big affect. I don't follow nor believe this silly video made by what you believe is over paid teachers. This would have been better if you put a few phds in front of her name and told me how much they were making off oil stocks. lool

CO2, the new cyanide

The AGWCult, membership limited only by your gullibility and ability to lie on a 24/7 basis

i was pointing out that part per million is relevant to the substances affect you babbling moron. go back to this third grade teacher and learn that ;poisons and toxins with carbon monoxide and dioxide are have negative affects even at low levels. ie asthma rate rising etc...

man you all get out there don't you. Why not learn the facts before posting such nonsense.

here:"
Question: Is Genetics One of the Causes of Asthma?
Answer: Yes and no. Studies show that more than half of childhood asthma cases are related to inheritance (meaning that often a parent or family member had or has asthma, too). However, a whole host of other risk factors increase asthma risk, too. Genetics certainly explains some, but not all cases of asthma."

 

[haissem123]

does it explain the clustering of asthma in the highest pollution areas such as inner cities? china's worst cities?