Greenland glaciers receding SLOWER then in the 1930s..

[bobgnote]

CO2 and the atmosphere dont 'warm' the surface. they change the equilibrium at the surface as the sun's input goes through the system and exits into space.

The claim of climate science (aside from your own description of the mechanism by which CO2 causes warming) is that CO2 radiates IR from the atmosphere back to the surface where it is reabsorbed and causes warming.

FAQ 1.3 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science

Page 115 - Frequently asked question 1.3

"what is the greenhouse effect"

"The Sun powers Earth’s climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet)part of the spectrum.
Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is reflected directly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space.

Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect."

You like to go on about what you call "my" theories on radiation when your own ideas about how CO2 causes warming are off the reservation as well ian. Climate science officilaly states that backradiation from the atmosphere back to the surface of the earth is the mechanism of the greenhouse effect, not the (also impossible) "slowing down" IR in its exit from the atmosphere.

Now you didn't come up with the idea that CO2 slows down IR from exiting the atmosphere any more than I came up with the physical laws, science, and mathematics that I use to support my position. Those that I reference, however, are not only supported, but are predicted by the laws of physics. (which, by the way is the reason that I believe they are correct) Those you use, on the other hand, are neither supported nor predicted by the laws of physics, and as you have shown repeatedly, you must alter the statements of the various laws in order for your position to even begin to make sense. This is the pseudoscience that you have adopted because it supported your already held belief that CO2 somehow must have the capacity to cause warming.

You picked the wrong horse ian. When will you admit it.

Oh, wow, Wienerbitch went to an FAQ. You got an estimate, for EFFECTS, of radiation, including backradiation, which diffuse, after you spammed up these threads, a couple of weeks ago, with crap, theorizing neat reflectivity, by clouds, as if the Earth's water works like a tin-foil hat.

Since you are so methodical, regal queen Wienerbitch, I see you have worked out "effect," to the degree needed, to go after FAQs, at a website, describing an "effect."

Let's see if you can get to FAQs about GWP for all the different kinds of methane and other GHGs. GWP looks like pretty good effect-theory, to me. Of course, now that you are into effects, you can quote yourself and fuck yourself, and ask yourself, frequently, why don't you, Wienerbitch, take off with your wingpunks, and fly up each others' butts?

Don't forget to go over to Dr. Climate Change, and see if the staff will answer you, if you can't get to FAQs, where you've been doing that, finally. I guess your FAQ trend means you, Wienerbitch are smart, for a stupid, posing queer.

You sure are an effete, bullshitting, chickenshitting bitch, trying to play "effects." Calc this

 

[Greenbeard]

So yes, you can apply algebraic properties to equations in physics, but you must define, and justify the use of the property as it will alter the physical reality that the equation is describing. In this case, it has never been either defined or justified and its use makes no sense whatsoever from a mathematical point of view because it complicates an equation that was already elegant. It was done with malicious intent and has now become a fundamental, and fatal error encoded into climate science. Take away that equation and all of the claims of climate science come crashing down.

It doesn't sound like your issue is with the use of Stefan-Boltzmann. It sounds like you're objecting to acknowledging or using the downward flux component of Schwarzschild's two stream equations in thinking about radiative transfer in an atmosphere (understanding the atmosphere itself to be a radiator). That's how you end up with a simple surface budget in which a planet's ground temperature exceeds its no-atmosphere value.

I thought it was pretty widely understand by most folks that the planet's surface is warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere. Is this now considered "bad" physics in some quarters?

 

[IanC]

So yes, you can apply algebraic properties to equations in physics, but you must define, and justify the use of the property as it will alter the physical reality that the equation is describing. In this case, it has never been either defined or justified and its use makes no sense whatsoever from a mathematical point of view because it complicates an equation that was already elegant. It was done with malicious intent and has now become a fundamental, and fatal error encoded into climate science. Take away that equation and all of the claims of climate science come crashing down.

It doesn't sound like your issue is with the use of Stefan-Boltzmann. It sounds like you're objecting to acknowledging or using the downward flux component of Schwarzschild's two stream equations in thinking about radiative transfer in an atmosphere (understanding the atmosphere itself to be a radiator). That's how you end up with a simple surface budget in which a planet's ground temperature exceeds its no-atmosphere value.

I thought it was pretty widely understand by most folks that the planet's surface is warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere. Is this now considered "bad" physics in some quarters?

thanks guy. well said

 

[bobgnote]

I know you can't set up problems, you always bullshit, and now, others seem to be agreeing with me, Wienerbitch.

Got any more FAQs, in no particular order? Where do you think you are going, to prove glaciers aren't actually receding? You diverted a thread, by trying to baffle everybody, with bullshit, and now, your bullshit is getting examined, and it is being shown to be bullshit.

Got any reasons why you ALWAYS bullshit, Wienerbitch? Gee, I guess Wally went to the beach, today.

 

[wirebender]

It doesn't sound like your issue is with the use of Stefan-Boltzmann. It sounds like you're objecting to acknowledging or using the downward flux component of Schwarzschild's two stream equations in thinking about radiative transfer in an atmosphere (understanding the atmosphere itself to be a radiator). That's how you end up with a simple surface budget in which a planet's ground temperature exceeds its no-atmosphere value.

There is no downward flux component from the atmosphere. I would be happy to give you the plans for a simple and inexpensive experiment (less than $40) that you can do in your own back yard to prove conclusively that there is no downward radiation due to CO2 or any other so called greenhouse gas other than water vapor.

I thought it was pretty widely understand by most folks that the planet's surface is warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere. Is this now considered "bad" physics in some quarters?

That's one of the problems with "wide" understanding. The atmosphere keeps us from freezing at night, but during the day, it keeps us from frying. Check out the daytime temperatures on the moon sans atmosphere.

 

[wirebender]

the reason why I always pipe up when you make incorrect statements is because the skeptical side must not make the same mistakes as the warmers. as soon as a skeptic makes an untrue claim that is enough for everything else that he says to be dismissed out of hand.

The reason you always pipe up is because you are wrong and can't bear to admit it. Then you go about distorting what I have said in an attempt to make me look wrong as well.

I work from basic principles and let others do the grunt work of calculations.

Actually, you don't. You work from distored basic principles which leads you to distorted understandings.

CO2 absorbs and scatters bands of IR which are part of the emission spectra of the earth's surface. this impedes the loss of energy to space. besides you and a few other crackpots everybody agrees with this principle and by denying it you make everything else you state come under suspicion.

Been through that and it doesn't happen. The only way CO2 could impeed the loss of energy to a degree which would mean anything at all would be if IR moved from CO2 molecule to CO2 molecule, to CO2 molecule. IR moving at, or very near the speed of light having a single interaction with a CO2 molecule and then moving on can not cause the effect you claim and since one CO2 molecule can't absorb the emission of another CO2 molecule, your hypothesis goes up in smoke.

then you mangle the SLoT. the SLoT has nothing to do with individual particles and their absorbance or emission of photons. the second law only deals with large numer systems.

A prime example of you working from distorted basic principles. The second law is a law of nature, not a law of systems. If it were a law of systems, it woudl state as much. No example exists of a violation of the second law....period.

here are the blackbody curves for 3 temperatures.

Irrelavent as the earth is not a black body. Another problem with using the SB equations as N&Z have proven.

are there complexities involved? of course! the earth's surface is a good blackbody,

More flawed basic principles. The earth's surface is not a black body at all. Here, have a definition from the science dictionary:

black body: (physics) Also called: full radiator a hypothetical body that would be capable of absorbing all the electromagnetic radiation falling on it.

The surface of the earth is nothing like a perfect radiator. You have missed the boat where the basics are concerned ian and doing so will invariably lead you to flawed conclusions. Wasn't it just last week when you were suggesting that natural processes were reversible when in fact, natural processes are irreversible?

the atmosphere less so, CO2 alone even less. that does not negate the basic principles of CO2 absorbing and scattering IR, which leads to less IR being lost to space.

Again, flawed basic principles. Scattering IR is a mechanism for cooling, not warming.

I really dont know how I could it explain it in simpler terms. and I am only explaining one aspect of what is going on. if skeptics deny that these basic processes are going on then why should anyone listen to the rest of the skeptical points?

You can't explain it at all ian, because you are wrong. There is no such thing as backradiation any more than there is back convetion or back conduction.

 

[wirebender]

I know you can't set up problems, you always bullshit, and now, others seem to be agreeing with me, Wienerbitch.

How proud they must be to be in agreement with the likes of you.

Hear that ian, you are in agreement with bobo.

 

[bobgnote]

Why wait, Wienerbitch? Cop to your experiment, next post, since you jerked the thread, for pages. It's an experiment. So what in the world are you waiting for, if you have it, already?

Sometimes Wiener doesn't have what he claims to have, such as some amount of science, going, which exceeds dilettante-retard levels.

Don't forget to include some sort of valid premise, such as, to read a graph, you have to pull your Wienerbitchin' head out of your anus.

 

[Greenbeard]

There is no downward flux component from the atmosphere. I would be happy to give you the plans for a simple and inexpensive experiment (less than $40) that you can do in your own back yard to prove conclusively that there is no downward radiation due to CO2 or any other so called greenhouse gas other than water vapor.

You've given away the game there. I don't know whether you've studied the relevant physics and frankly I don't really care. It's clear from that little bit at the end there that you at least acknowledge it and don't actually, as you intimated above, hold the bizarre belief that radiative transfer, insomuch as its affects temperatures of lower slabs of atmosphere (down to ground level), somehow violates the laws of physics. You just want to pick which components of the atmosphere you choose to acknowledge determine its infrared opacity.

That's a much more limited argument than you've been suggesting. "CO2 is not a strong absorber" is much different than "it violates the laws of physics for a slab of atmosphere to absorb and emit."

 

[wirebender]

You've given away the game there. I don't know whether you've studied the relevant physics and frankly I don't really care. It's clear from that little bit at the end there that you at least acknowledge it and don't actually, as you intimated above, hold the bizarre belief that radiative transfer, insomuch as its affects temperatures of lower slabs of atmosphere (down to ground level), somehow violates the laws of physics. You just want to pick which components of the atmosphere you choose to acknowledge determine its infrared opacity.

The reason that downdwelling radiation is possible with water vapor is that water vapor can actually absorb energy and in fact become warmer than the surface in which case, the 2nd law states pretty clearly that energy can move from warmer to cooler.

That's a much more limited argument than you've been suggesting. "CO2 is not a strong absorber" is much different than "it violates the laws of physics for a slab of atmosphere to absorb and emit."

No, it is precisely what I have been suggesting. Water vapor is the only gas within the atmospere that absorbs and retains energy, therefore it is the only gas within the atmosphere capable of causing warming. CO2, and the other assorted so called greenhouse gasses don't cause less warming, they don't cause any warming.

 

[bobgnote]

You've given away the game there. I don't know whether you've studied the relevant physics and frankly I don't really care. It's clear from that little bit at the end there that you at least acknowledge it and don't actually, as you intimated above, hold the bizarre belief that radiative transfer, insomuch as its affects temperatures of lower slabs of atmosphere (down to ground level), somehow violates the laws of physics. You just want to pick which components of the atmosphere you choose to acknowledge determine its infrared opacity.

The reason that downdwelling radiation is possible with water vapor is that water vapor can actually absorb energy and in fact become warmer than the surface in which case, the 2nd law states pretty clearly that energy can move from warmer to cooler.

That's a much more limited argument than you've been suggesting. "CO2 is not a strong absorber" is much different than "it violates the laws of physics for a slab of atmosphere to absorb and emit."

No, it is precisely what I have been suggesting. Water vapor is the only gas within the atmospere that absorbs and retains energy, therefore it is the only gas within the atmosphere capable of causing warming. CO2, and the other assorted so called greenhouse gasses don't cause less warming, they don't cause any warming.

The Wienerbitch physical laws don't include any provision, for absorption of IR, by any GHG, since these must simply reflect all energy or absorb and re-emit, instantly, and directly out into space. If emission by CO2 or CH4 issue at another atmospheric partical, this radiation shall not under any circumstances be absorbed, certainly not by the lower atmosphere or surface of the Earth, the end.

Wienerbitch physics formerly included the tinfoil hat theory, how water neatly reflects all radiation, into space, never mind 40 or so miles of atmosphere and several tendencies going on, all the way up and down and around the heated, lighted side, of Earth.

Wienerbitch, you can't load a good graph, half the time, and you are only one-for-two. You can't think, you can't write, you don't come up with links, you don't know physics better than I do, and I didn't study physics, and you are a sorry dumbshit and an asshole of a hermaphrodite. Have a good weekend, dumbshit.

 

[skookerasbil]

Why do the warmer k00ks get so angry and miserable all the time if they are so sure they are 100% correct??

 

[wirebender]

The Wienerbitch physical laws don't include any provision, for absorption of IR, by any GHG,

You idiot, physical laws predict absorption and emission by certain molecules in certain wavelengths. To bad there isn't a children's section on this board because you clearly don't know enough to talk with the adults.

It is more than clear bob that you don't have the slightest idea what we are talking about, much less understand the physics involved.

 

[wirebender]

Why do the warmer k00ks get so angry and miserable all the time if they are so sure they are 100% correct??

Because they are kooks. That's what kooks do.

 

[bobgnote]

The Wienerbitch physical laws don't include any provision, for absorption of IR, by any GHG,

You idiot, physical laws predict absorption and emission by certain molecules in certain wavelengths. To bad there isn't a children's section on this board because you clearly don't know enough to talk with the adults.

It is more than clear bob that you don't have the slightest idea what we are talking about, much less understand the physics involved.

Suckassbil has the meth, Wienerbitch is the hermaphrodite, and bitch, you were trying to tell Ian how only warm objects can radiate, which is shit, like what you have for brains.

You can't understand molecular and radiation issues, you pretended the Earth's atmosphere can reflect, like a tinfoil hat, you loaded a shit graph, with no labels on the plots, and you loaded a montage of La Jolla, purportedly showing sea level information, without tidal reference points.

Your qualifications at physics are you happen to be a retarded hermaphrodite, bitch.

So why don't you take your boyfriend suckass out for some 69 smilies? A wiener retard, and a "winner," who is a complete idiot, eh? You punks are made for each other.

 

[wirebender]

Suckassbil has the meth, Wienerbitch is the hermaphrodite, and bitch, you were trying to tell Ian how only warm objects can radiate, which is shit, like what you have for brains.

Obviously, you can't read bob. But do feel free to bring forward any quote from me in which I said only warm objects can radiate. Failure to do so will only serve to prove that you can't read.

Clearly bob, this is waaaaaaayyyyyyy over your head so why subject yourself to further public humiliation?

 

[bobgnote]

Suckassbil has the meth, Wienerbitch is the hermaphrodite, and bitch, you were trying to tell Ian how only warm objects can radiate, which is shit, like what you have for brains.

Obviously, you can't read bob. But do feel free to bring forward any quote from me in which I said only warm objects can radiate. Failure to do so will only serve to prove that you can't read.

Clearly bob, this is waaaaaaayyyyyyy over your head so why subject yourself to further public humiliation?

What would that be over, Wienerbitch? Fucktard physics, whereby you might swear atmospheric molecules with three or more atoms don't tend to cause a greenhouse effect?Would that be Wiener's theory of convection, which is magically the same as photon emission, leading to Ian's several pages of questions, for you?

Would that be your gay graphics, where you loaded that piece of shit, on its side, without labels, for the plots, or a Holocene Period, both relevant? Would that be your inability, to read a valid graph?

Would that be La Jolla beach boy oceanography, where you did an unscholarly load, of a photo-montage, with no tidal reference markers?

Would that be idiot inference, which you use, with your head, waaaaaaayyyyyy up your hermaphrodite asshole, while trying to think and type and masturbate, all at once, so you just dissed O.R. for linking a study, with satellite data? Can you remember, to eat shit, and die?

See if you can shoot this, over Pig Shitz' head, since Ian is making you look like an asshole: the heat of the Wienermeat times the mass of the hermaphrodite ass is inversely proportional, to the angle of the bitch-dangle, times a constant, given constant Wienerbitch masturbation, during any hockey game, where bitch won't pick up a stick.

Go Wiener! Go Wiener! Go Wienerbitch. Piss off, idiot.

 

[wirebender]

Unable to provide the quote you attribute to me bob? How completely unsurprising since I never said any such thing. That can only mean that in additon to being a repressed homosexual, you lie. You get less interesting all the time.

 

[IanC]

11-29-2011, 04:51 AM
wirebender
Registered User
Member #29079 Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 1,712
Thanks: 49
Thanked 572 Times in 409 Posts
Rep Power: 71



Quote: Originally Posted by IanC
you seem quite certain of this and I have no doubt that you believe it. all I am asking for is some independent confirmation and an explanation of how it happens and where it happens. I have already asked whether it happens inside the CO2 molecule, enroute to the surface, or at the surface but you have refused to give any details of this process that seems to contradict the known rules of physics. could you just give a few more details so that we mere mortals might learn at the feet of the master?
ian, I have answered all your questions ad nauseum. As I have said, you won't find much information on the how because the how is not understood. The fact that opposing EM fields reduce each other's magnitude however is well known, observable, and repeatable science. The energy can not be destroyed but is gone none the less. Since the energy is composed of its carrier, ie photons, it is the number of photons that is being diminished.

is this the past explanation yo are talking about? hahahahaha. wirebender's clear, concise, and logical thinking on display.

 

[skookerasbil]

Suckassbil has the meth, Wienerbitch is the hermaphrodite, and bitch, you were trying to tell Ian how only warm objects can radiate, which is shit, like what you have for brains.

Obviously, you can't read bob. But do feel free to bring forward any quote from me in which I said only warm objects can radiate. Failure to do so will only serve to prove that you can't read.

Clearly bob, this is waaaaaaayyyyyyy over your head so why subject yourself to further public humiliation?

What would that be over, Wienerbitch? Fucktard physics, whereby you might swear atmospheric molecules with three or more atoms don't tend to cause a greenhouse effect?Would that be Wiener's theory of convection, which is magically the same as photon emission, leading to Ian's several pages of questions, for you?

Would that be your gay graphics, where you loaded that piece of shit, on its side, without labels, for the plots, or a Holocene Period, both relevant? Would that be your inability, to read a valid graph?

Would that be La Jolla beach boy oceanography, where you did an unscholarly load, of a photo-montage, with no tidal reference markers?

Would that be idiot inference, which you use, with your head, waaaaaaayyyyyy up your hermaphrodite asshole, while trying to think and type and masturbate, all at once, so you just dissed O.R. for linking a study, with satellite data? Can you remember, to eat shit, and die?

See if you can shoot this, over Pig Shitz' head, since Ian is making you look like an asshole: the heat of the Wienermeat times the mass of the hermaphrodite ass is inversely proportional, to the angle of the bitch-dangle, times a constant, given constant Wienerbitch masturbation, during any hockey game, where bitch won't pick up a stick.

Go Wiener! Go Wiener! Go Wienerbitch. Piss off, idiot.

Ya know fella's.........check out all the pet names!!!

Im becomming convinced we have a miserable, angry limpwrister on our hands here.......but its cool. He brings the good stuff we like to make fun of. If its a bit gay, so be it.