Global Warming is legit

[wirebender]

An increase is an increase. 1% vs 0.5% merely increases the time, but doesn't change the results. I notice you said "new equilibrium". Not back to baseline? Not lower, surely? What does that leave, but up?

What it leaves is a violation of the law of conservation of energy. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. You have the energy from the sun. That's it. No more. Acording to climate science, the atmosphere radiates more energy to the surface of the earth than the sun. Where does that energy come from?

 

[konradv]

An increase is an increase. 1% vs 0.5% merely increases the time, but doesn't change the results. I notice you said "new equilibrium". Not back to baseline? Not lower, surely? What does that leave, but up?

What it leaves is a violation of the law of conservation of energy. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. You have the energy from the sun. That's it. No more. Acording to climate science, the atmosphere radiates more energy to the surface of the earth than the sun. Where does that energy come from?

You're making things up. No one says the atmosphere radiates more energy than the sun. You're the one not accounting for all the energy by ignoring back-scattering of photons by CO2.

 

[rancidmilko]

Are you people really trying to pinpoint what's making the average world temp go up?
With so many variables?

 

[IanC]

There is no physical way of stopping an excited CO2 molecule from radiating an IR photon in a random direction, some of which will be pointed to earth and some of those will impact the surface.

I never said that there was. What I said is that energy can not travel in two directions along the same vector. I asked you which vector might exist in which energy from the atmosphere might travel unimpeeded to the surface of the earth and you had no answer.

If you would like to explain how energy might travel in two directions along the same vector, by all means do so and describe an experiment by which it might be proven possible. Of course to do so would be a workable mechanism for a perpetual motion machine.

an IR photon is emitted from a CO2 molecule. if its direction is towards the earth, it will continue to travel until it hits the earth or another particle of matter in between. you say it just ceases to exist while refusing to say where or how this miracle happens. I have shown you a clip from a university lecture that describes how photons on the same path but going in opposite directions form various types of interference at the meeting spot but then continue on their same paths with no transfer of energy. I am at a complete loss to understand your view. even your heroes, the skydragon slayers, dont take such a bizarre stance but instead say that there is harmonic reflection at the surface.

will you now, or ever, flesh out the details of your amazing theory of how radiative photons blink out of existence without the necessity of interacting with matter?

ps. I could care less what your respect-o-meter reads but I would be interested in how you think I am making a perpetual motion machine by describing common radiative functions

 

[code1211]

Why do reminders about natural cycles have to be made to the skeptics?

No need. It your contention that changing the concentration of CO2 will change the climate. You have yet to prove this contention. You are welcome to do so.

My observation is that your case makes an assertion and this is not supported by the reality of the natural world. Your response should have been to show that in truth the temperature always follows the rise of CO2.

Since this simply does not happen, I understand your inability to do so. However, what I don't understand is why you bitterly cling to your assertion when there is no proof to support it.

I'm clinging to the notion that, since CO2 can absorb IR and re-emit it towards earth and CO2 has been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the Law of Conservation of Energy demands we account for that increase in energy. If it's not going towards heating the earth, it's your turn to explain what's happening to it.

That is not true. My turn is simply to observe what is actually happening in the real world and wonder why you don't seem to notice it.

Conservation of Energy may demand what ever you say it demands, but it apparently does not demand enough of anything to drive the climate. Until you show that what you are asserting is actually doing something that can be demonstrated by actual proof in the real world, you are only moving hot air in your own immediate vicinity.

 

[Saigon]

Until you show that what you are asserting is actually doing something that can be demonstrated by actual proof in the real world, you are only moving hot air in your own immediate vicinity.

The impacts of climate change have been evident and visible in the real world for a good 20 years now - it just depends where you live.

But you can go to Spain and Australia and see the spread of deserts, brought about by previously unknown drought cycles and rising temperatures.

You can see the rising sea levels in Bangladesh and Mozambique, and local people certainly know about them.

You can see it here in Finland when we have winters with virtually no snow - unprecedented according to all records and models.

It doesn't surprise me that acceptance of climate change is highest in countries where the evidence is most apparent - lowest in countries where the impact is not yet so great.

 

[Old Rocks]

Are you people really trying to pinpoint what's making the average world temp go up?
With so many variables?

Fellow, on terms of decades, there are only two variables. How much energy we get from the sun, and how much of that energy is retained on earth. All else is just minor redistributions from ocean, atmosphere, and cryosphere.

 

[Old Rocks]

No need. It your contention that changing the concentration of CO2 will change the climate. You have yet to prove this contention. You are welcome to do so.

My observation is that your case makes an assertion and this is not supported by the reality of the natural world. Your response should have been to show that in truth the temperature always follows the rise of CO2.

Since this simply does not happen, I understand your inability to do so. However, what I don't understand is why you bitterly cling to your assertion when there is no proof to support it.

I'm clinging to the notion that, since CO2 can absorb IR and re-emit it towards earth and CO2 has been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the Law of Conservation of Energy demands we account for that increase in energy. If it's not going towards heating the earth, it's your turn to explain what's happening to it.

That is not true. My turn is simply to observe what is actually happening in the real world and wonder why you don't seem to notice it.

Conservation of Energy may demand what ever you say it demands, but it apparently does not demand enough of anything to drive the climate. Until you show that what you are asserting is actually doing something that can be demonstrated by actual proof in the real world, you are only moving hot air in your own immediate vicinity.

Of course all the scientists that are actively observing atmosphere, oceans, and cryosphere are all stating that you are full of shit, Code.

 

[IanC]

every time it is closely examined it shows exaggeration and unfounded conclusions.

Really? On how many occasions has this been shown, and by whom?

Please be specific in your reply.

is there any particular subject you want to discuss?

Shakun 2012 is a recent example that caught the attention of the climate wars. it supposedly shows that CO2 caused the end of the last ice age but it has been ripped to shreds and shouldnt have made it through peer review. it even used Mann's Nature trick to hide the decline.

of course, as you can tell by my sig, the Hockey Stick Graph is one of my favourite topics because it ties dozens of lines of corruption together in one foul smelling story.

you choose.

 

[wirebender]

you say it just ceases to exist while refusing to say where or how this miracle happens.

That is not what I say and your incessant dishonesty about my argument further brings your inherent dishonesty into high relief. There is no argument that when two EM fields encounter each other, the field of greater magnituded determines the ultimate directon of propagation. The field of greater magnitude is diminished by the amplitude of the lesser field. That dimunation is the result of energy expended overcoming the lesser field. When energy in an EM field is expended, it is at the expense of the number of photons (if photons actually exist) that make up the EM field.

I have shown you a clip from a university lecture that describes how photons on the same path but going in opposite directions form various types of interference at the meeting spot but then continue on their same paths with no transfer of energy. I am at a complete loss to understand your view. even your heroes, the skydragon slayers, dont take such a bizarre stance but instead say that there is harmonic reflection at the surface.

Yeah well, as you know, you can be shown a university lecture that claims that the atmosphere is beaming down more than twice the amount of radiation to the surface of the earth as is received from the sun. University lectures don't mean much in these days of saying whatever the highest bidder wants said.

 

[Saigon]

Shakun 2012 is a recent example that caught the attention of the climate wars. it supposedly shows that CO2 caused the end of the last ice age but it has been ripped to shreds and shouldnt have made it through peer review. it even used Mann's Nature trick to hide the decline.

of course, as you can tell by my sig, the Hockey Stick Graph is one of my favourite topics because it ties dozens of lines of corruption together in one foul smelling story.

Yes...there isn't a lot there, is there?

We all know about the Univesity of East Anglia debacle, and I accept most criticisms of both the hockey stick and Shakun.

Which amounts to 3 academic papers, or studies.

I mentioned earlier a site listing at least 800 peer-reviewed pieces of research, all conducted to the highest standards. I've never seen any of them attacked.

I just don't see how you can find fault in 3 studies, and use that to justify abandoning an entire field of study. It makes no sense to me at all.

 

[Old Rocks]

Far more than 800 papers.

AGW Observer

 

[konradv]

No need. It your contention that changing the concentration of CO2 will change the climate. You have yet to prove this contention. You are welcome to do so.

My observation is that your case makes an assertion and this is not supported by the reality of the natural world. Your response should have been to show that in truth the temperature always follows the rise of CO2.

Since this simply does not happen, I understand your inability to do so. However, what I don't understand is why you bitterly cling to your assertion when there is no proof to support it.

I'm clinging to the notion that, since CO2 can absorb IR and re-emit it towards earth and CO2 has been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the Law of Conservation of Energy demands we account for that increase in energy. If it's not going towards heating the earth, it's your turn to explain what's happening to it.

That is not true. My turn is simply to observe what is actually happening in the real world and wonder why you don't seem to notice it.

Conservation of Energy may demand what ever you say it demands, but it apparently does not demand enough of anything to drive the climate. Until you show that what you are asserting is actually doing something that can be demonstrated by actual proof in the real world, you are only moving hot air in your own immediate vicinity.

Conservation of Energy demands you tell me what happens to the energy of back-scattered photons. If you can't, the only logical inference is that it contributes to warming. That's all the proof one should need. What's YOUR deduction from the evidence presented? Do you have an alternate theory of what happens to the energy? If not, your opinion isn't worth much.

 

[code1211]

Until you show that what you are asserting is actually doing something that can be demonstrated by actual proof in the real world, you are only moving hot air in your own immediate vicinity.

The impacts of climate change have been evident and visible in the real world for a good 20 years now - it just depends where you live.

But you can go to Spain and Australia and see the spread of deserts, brought about by previously unknown drought cycles and rising temperatures.

You can see the rising sea levels in Bangladesh and Mozambique, and local people certainly know about them.

You can see it here in Finland when we have winters with virtually no snow - unprecedented according to all records and models.

It doesn't surprise me that acceptance of climate change is highest in countries where the evidence is most apparent - lowest in countries where the impact is not yet so great.

I have a degree in Art with a concentration in lithography. This is a singularly worthless college degree in terms of commerce, but there are some things that were of interest in the learning of the dying art.

In the art of Northern Europe, we see an interesting phenomenon in about 1300. All of the artists are grabbing their aisles and scaling the nearest hill to paint or draw their village in early winter. Why? Because there is snow on the roof tops of all of the houses. This was something they had never seen in their life times.

It was something that would linger for hundreds of years.

We are not departing from an ideal mean. We are enjoying a warming that is overdue.

Desert expansion? The rise of the Egyptian culture is thought to be the result of the joining of the desert people who were driven from their homes by the encroaching desert and ran into the river valley people. The joining of the two cultures created a critical mass of creativity and so the culture dominated the ancient world for centuries.

Climate changes. Always has and always will.

Got any photos of the sea rising in the far east today as compared to photos from 100 years ago when the land was high and dry?

 

[code1211]

I'm clinging to the notion that, since CO2 can absorb IR and re-emit it towards earth and CO2 has been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the Law of Conservation of Energy demands we account for that increase in energy. If it's not going towards heating the earth, it's your turn to explain what's happening to it.

That is not true. My turn is simply to observe what is actually happening in the real world and wonder why you don't seem to notice it.

Conservation of Energy may demand what ever you say it demands, but it apparently does not demand enough of anything to drive the climate. Until you show that what you are asserting is actually doing something that can be demonstrated by actual proof in the real world, you are only moving hot air in your own immediate vicinity.

Of course all the scientists that are actively observing atmosphere, oceans, and cryosphere are all stating that you are full of shit, Code.

You'll have to produce a link to that statement.

Also the link to the photographic evidence of the rise of the ocean over the last 100 years.

 

[code1211]

I'm clinging to the notion that, since CO2 can absorb IR and re-emit it towards earth and CO2 has been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the Law of Conservation of Energy demands we account for that increase in energy. If it's not going towards heating the earth, it's your turn to explain what's happening to it.

That is not true. My turn is simply to observe what is actually happening in the real world and wonder why you don't seem to notice it.

Conservation of Energy may demand what ever you say it demands, but it apparently does not demand enough of anything to drive the climate. Until you show that what you are asserting is actually doing something that can be demonstrated by actual proof in the real world, you are only moving hot air in your own immediate vicinity.

Conservation of Energy demands you tell me what happens to the energy of back-scattered photons. If you can't, the only logical inference is that it contributes to warming. That's all the proof one should need. What's YOUR deduction from the evidence presented? Do you have an alternate theory of what happens to the energy? If not, your opinion isn't worth much.

Let's concede that what you are saying is absolutely correct and all of what you say is contributing all of what you suppose to the warming of the planet.

Why is the planet cooling?

 

[rancidmilko]

Are you people really trying to pinpoint what's making the average world temp go up?
With so many variables?

Fellow, on terms of decades, there are only two variables. How much energy we get from the sun, and how much of that energy is retained on earth. All else is just minor redistributions from ocean, atmosphere, and cryosphere.

What about all the methane being released?
Along with other gases?
Geothermal and volcanic activity?

 

[IanC]

Shakun 2012 is a recent example that caught the attention of the climate wars. it supposedly shows that CO2 caused the end of the last ice age but it has been ripped to shreds and shouldnt have made it through peer review. it even used Mann's Nature trick to hide the decline.

of course, as you can tell by my sig, the Hockey Stick Graph is one of my favourite topics because it ties dozens of lines of corruption together in one foul smelling story.

Yes...there isn't a lot there, is there?

We all know about the Univesity of East Anglia debacle, and I accept most criticisms of both the hockey stick and Shakun.

Which amounts to 3 academic papers, or studies.

I mentioned earlier a site listing at least 800 peer-reviewed pieces of research, all conducted to the highest standards. I've never seen any of them attacked.

I just don't see how you can find fault in 3 studies, and use that to justify abandoning an entire field of study. It makes no sense to me at all.

but it is not just three studies. many or most of the lynchpin CAGW studies are either seriously flawed or have conclusions in them that are not supported by the data provided. when climate scientists act like lawyers trying to put their client in the best light rather than scientists trying to expand on knowledge I get suspicious. Santer used wind shear as a proxy for temperature to prop up the hot spot even though there was massive amounts of measured data from ballons and satellites! science is supposed to follow the data, these guys have a conclusion that they scrounge up evidence for, no matter how flimsy. the upside-down Tiljander cores just tale the cake! and not only are they still being used in follow on studies but your REAL SCIENTISTS dont say a peep about it. how can they sleep at night knowing that they stood silent as a few really bad eggs hijacks climate science and destroyed public trust?

 

[rancidmilko]

Why is the planet cooling?

It's not cooling, it's not getting hotter
It's going crazy

 

[wirebender]

Conservation of Energy demands you tell me what happens to the energy of back-scattered photons. If you can't, the only logical inference is that it contributes to warming. That's all the proof one should need. What's YOUR deduction from the evidence presented? Do you have an alternate theory of what happens to the energy? If not, your opinion isn't worth much.

It has been explained to you repeatdedly konradv. You are either just to stupid or to faithful to grasp what has been explained to you. The energy the backradiated photons represent is expended in opposition to the EM field being radiated by the surface of the earth. The magnitude of the EM field radiated by the surface of the earth is, in turn, diminished by the magnituded of the EM field radiated by the atmosphere. The EM field being radiated by the earth, being larger than that being radiated by the atmosphere determines the direction of propagation and therefore the direction of energy flow.

Those things happen in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy. If any of that energy reached the surface, it would be a violation of both those laws as energy would have to move from a cool object (the atmosphere) to a warm object (the earth) and if the earth absorbed any of that energy, its radiation output would have to increase even though its energy source (the sun) was not putting out more energy. That would represent the creation of energy and that, according to the law of conservation of energy simply can't happen.

Your failure to understand what the laws of physics is almost, but not quite as tragic as ian's belief that the laws of physics don't really mean what they say.