Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You state that the increase in CO2 has no effect on the heat of the earth and the atmosphere. A degreed physicist states that you are completely wrong. Now whom should I believe? LOL
In other words, Bent, you are just as full of shit as those fellows that are constantly showing reams of math demonstrating that Einstein had it all wrong. And then complaining that the scientific establishment has a conspiracy going to suppress their nonsense.
You state that the increase in CO2 has no effect on the heat of the earth and the atmosphere. A degreed physicist states that you are completely wrong. Now whom should I believe? LOL
It doesn't really matter which you believe rocks. Your belief isn't based on any sort of actual knowledge of the science on your part. Your position, and who you choose to believe is a product of your political leanings.
There are plenty of degreed physicists who state adamantly that CO2 does not effect the climate and unlike this clown you reference, those who state that CO2 does not effect the climate back their positions up with actual math supported and predicted by the laws of physics.
Your guy proves himself a hack when he broaches the topic of the 2nd law of thermodynamics with his talk of "net" energy flows. The 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't mention "net" energy flows. "Net" energy flows are just so much claptrap fabricated by those to whom the actual second law of thermodynamics presents a problem.
Just take a look at how he glosses over the fact that the energy budget doesn't jibe with his claims. He states:
"To satisfy the second law of thermodynamics, the *net* energy flow is from the surface to the atmosphere. Now let’s just move past a simple example of “greenhouse gases warm because of more downward energy.” On net, the radiation from the surface is greater than the back-radiation from the greenhouse effect. "
He makes this statment just below this graphic:
Look at what he says: "On net, the radiation from the surface is greater than the back-radiation from the greenhouse effect."
And compare that to what the graphic says: 168 watts per square meter absorbed by the surface of the earth from its only energy source, ie THE SUN and 324 watts per square meter of energy absorbed by the surface of the earth due to backradiation. Now explain to me rocks, and explain in terms of physical laws and be prepared to do the math, how one can make the statement that on "net" the radiation from the surface is greater than the backradiation from the greenhouse effect when the energy budget he refers to shows nearly twice as much energy being absorbed by the surface of the earth in the form of backradiation as it absorbs from its only energy source and while you are at it, explain how that does not violate the law of conservation of energy.
In short, rocks, your physicist is full of crapola. It does show that people will prostitue their inellects if enough money is up for grabs.
Research findings published by none other than CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, in the journal Nature which holds cosmic rays and the Sun, not human activities, responsible for global warming, isn't exactly what Gore would welcome right now.
CERN, which created and operates the Large Hadron Collider, has now built a stainless steel chamber that precisely recreates the Earth's atmosphere. In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes demonstrated that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules which grow in Earth's atmosphere and seed clouds, making it cloudier and cooler.
"Because the sun's magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth's atmosphere (the stronger the sun's magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth," Lawrence Solomon, director of Energy Probe, wrote about the experiment.
.
.
.
.
CERN's CLOUD is headed by Jasper Kirkby, who said in 1998 that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth's temperature, which made global warming alarmists restless. "The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes' groundbreaking theory," Lawrence Solomon says.
"Although they never said so, the High Priests of the Inconvenient Truth - in such temples as NASA-GISS, Penn State and the University of East Anglia - always knew that Svensmark's cosmic ray hypothesis was the principal threat to their sketchy and poorly modelled notions of self-amplifying action of greenhouse gases," Nigel Calder, well-known science writer wrote about the CERN findings. "In telling how the obviously large influences of the Sun in previous centuries and millennia could be explained, and in applying the same mechanism to the 20th warming, Svensmark put the alarmist predictions at risk - and with them the billions of dollars flowing from anxious governments into the global warming enterprise."
Alarmists Got it Wrong, Humans Not Responsible for Climate Change: CERN - International Business Times
THere's no doubt Wirebender that the tan (or red) numbers are either ALL WRONG -- or -- they are in different units. I'm late to arrive here.. Where did this turkey come from?
]
If you hit the earth with only the 168watts/sq meter for a long enough period of time with NOTHING going back out -- it would store thermal energy to the point where it could emit a larger POWER rating in watts/sq meter than the original source.. Same for pumping POWER into the atmosphere and then observing the capacity to store it as energy and reradiate it in either small or larger power streams.
]I think THAT'S the misinterpretation of this confusing graphic. ALL the paths are not SUPPOSED to balance. It's two different flows juxtasupposed on a single graphic..
weather 101 for neocons...this is basic so kooks and bentwire can comprehend.
When you change any one the basic elements for weather, you get a different outcome. Rather simple really...but oh so hard to predict accurately.
Basic Ingredients for Weather
Building Blocks of Weather
However __ Don't get confused by the diff between POWER (like watts/sqmeter) and ENERGY which implies rate of power over time. We STORE ENERGY -- not power..
So the colored paths in tan (red) also include the stored THERMAL CAPACITY of either the atmosphere or the earth.
If you hit the earth with only the 168watts/sq meter for a long enough period of time with NOTHING going back out -- it would store thermal energy to the point where it could emit a larger POWER rating in watts/sq meter than the original source.. Same for pumping POWER into the atmosphere and then observing the capacity to store it as energy and reradiate it in either small or larger power streams.
I think THAT'S the misinterpretation of this confusing graphic. ALL the paths are not SUPPOSED to balance. It's two different flows juxtasupposed on a single graphic..
However __ Don't get confused by the diff between POWER (like watts/sqmeter) and ENERGY which implies rate of power over time. We STORE ENERGY -- not power..
So the colored paths in tan (red) also include the stored THERMAL CAPACITY of either the atmosphere or the earth.
If you hit the earth with only the 168watts/sq meter for a long enough period of time with NOTHING going back out -- it would store thermal energy to the point where it could emit a larger POWER rating in watts/sq meter than the original source.. Same for pumping POWER into the atmosphere and then observing the capacity to store it as energy and reradiate it in either small or larger power streams.
I think THAT'S the misinterpretation of this confusing graphic. ALL the paths are not SUPPOSED to balance. It's two different flows juxtasupposed on a single graphic..
dont confuse wirebender with simple physics. he stakes his case on some esoteric version of 'electromagnetic fields' which make it impossible for CO2 molecules to emit radiation towards earth. or he states thermodynamic laws in inappropriate examples and ways. or he just tries to excessively simplify or make complex his position to produce a strawman which he then demands that only mathematical formulas can disprove.
this is one of the few areas that Old Rocks is actually perceptive about. wirebender is a crackpot who cloaks his nonsense with some truthful aspects which he trots out when people call him on his BS.
]
If you hit the earth with only the 168watts/sq meter for a long enough period of time with NOTHING going back out -- it would store thermal energy to the point where it could emit a larger POWER rating in watts/sq meter than the original source.. Same for pumping POWER into the atmosphere and then observing the capacity to store it as energy and reradiate it in either small or larger power streams.
It would never reach a point where it could radiate more energy than it receives from its power source. The law of conservation of energy states explicitly that energy can never be created or destroyed. In order to radiate more than it receives, the excess (energy beyond what is received from the only energy source) would have to come from somewhere.
No magic here. A reservoir of energy can radiate power at a rate to either INCREASE the reservoir capacity or diminish it. When the sun goes down -- the reservoir discharges a certain rate depending on thermal conduction and actual IR.. When the sun comes up, the reservoir recharges at a rate similiar to yesterday if the weather is similiar. So when you introduce the TIME variable (rate of charge or discharge) and the conduction variables (atmospheric content, clouds, weather, ect) the rate of discharge (watts/sq meter) COULD exceed the daily rate of charge (watts/sq meter)because of the capacity of the reservoir. At least for a period of time. OR GHG model model, the the rate of discharge OUT of the whole system (atmosphere included) could be less than the rate of daytime charge causing energy to be stored. (up to the capacity of the reservoir -- and this is where we are NOT gonna get back into whether "CO2 stores heat"
We go back to the electric heater radiating 1000 watts per square meter. No matter how many reflectors you put around that heater, or how much insulation you wrap it with, you will never get a single watts worth of energy that you don't pay the electric company for. You can not multiply energy. If you could, you would have a power supply for a perpetual motion machine in defiance of the law of conservation of energy.
That's correct -- if you look at it from energy in/out standpoint. But if I turn that heater off, it's ability to MAINTAIN a watts/sq meter Power stream would depend on it's capacity to store heat. Fill it with oil and the thermostat won't click on/off as often to maintain temperature. If I toss a thermal blanket over it (PLEASE DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME) I can't change the total energy budget -- but I sure can RAISE the temperature of the heater surface over time. Time RATES of power flow is the difference between power flow and energy capacity.
Describe a situation on earth where energy might be constantly received but none radiated back out.
Can't really do it that way. But I CAN describe a situation where power is constantly radiated and virtually none comes in --- it's called nighttime.. And to your favor -- some brilliant scientists have used that trick to show NO correlation between desert night-time lows and increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. Essentially taking the sun forcing function completely out of the equation. That one experiment has done more to make me a skeptic denier than any other single piece of evidence.
]I think THAT'S the misinterpretation of this confusing graphic. ALL the paths are not SUPPOSED to balance. It's two different flows juxtasupposed on a single graphic..
That is an accurate representation of the energy budget upon which climate alarmism is based. It represents exactly what it looks like it represents. If you accept climate alarmism in whole or in part, then you must accept that energy budget as it represents the basis of alarmism. To reject that energy budget and the flows it represents is to reject the alarmist claim of a greenhouse effect.
If you recognize that those numbers can't actually represent reality, then you recognize the fraud that is AGW.
]
If you hit the earth with only the 168watts/sq meter for a long enough period of time with NOTHING going back out -- it would store thermal energy to the point where it could emit a larger POWER rating in watts/sq meter than the original source.. Same for pumping POWER into the atmosphere and then observing the capacity to store it as energy and reradiate it in either small or larger power streams.
It would never reach a point where it could radiate more energy than it receives from its power source. The law of conservation of energy states explicitly that energy can never be created or destroyed. In order to radiate more than it receives, the excess (energy beyond what is received from the only energy source) would have to come from somewhere.
We go back to the electric heater radiating 1000 watts per square meter. No matter how many reflectors you put around that heater, or how much insulation you wrap it with, you will never get a single watts worth of energy that you don't pay the electric company for. You can not multiply energy. If you could, you would have a power supply for a perpetual motion machine in defiance of the law of conservation of energy.
Describe a situation on earth where energy might be constantly received but none radiated back out.
]I think THAT'S the misinterpretation of this confusing graphic. ALL the paths are not SUPPOSED to balance. It's two different flows juxtasupposed on a single graphic..
That is an accurate representation of the energy budget upon which climate alarmism is based. It represents exactly what it looks like it represents. If you accept climate alarmism in whole or in part, then you must accept that energy budget as it represents the basis of alarmism. To reject that energy budget and the flows it represents is to reject the alarmist claim of a greenhouse effect.
If you recognize that those numbers can't actually represent reality, then you recognize the fraud that is AGW.
dont confuse wirebender with simple physics. he stakes his case on some esoteric version of 'electromagnetic fields' which make it impossible for CO2 molecules to emit radiation towards earth. or he states thermodynamic laws in inappropriate examples and ways. or he just tries to excessively simplify or make complex his position to produce a strawman which he then demands that only mathematical formulas can disprove.
this is one of the few areas that Old Rocks is actually perceptive about. wirebender is a crackpot who cloaks his nonsense with some truthful aspects which he trots out when people call him on his BS.
No magic here. A reservoir of energy can radiate power at a rate to either INCREASE the reservoir capacity or diminish it. When the sun goes down -- the reservoir discharges a certain rate depending on thermal conduction and actual IR.. When the sun comes up, the reservoir recharges at a rate similiar to yesterday if the weather is similiar.
So when you introduce the TIME variable (rate of charge or discharge) and the conduction variables (atmospheric content, clouds, weather, ect) the rate of discharge (watts/sq meter) COULD exceed the daily rate of charge (watts/sq meter)because of the capacity of the reservoir. At least for a period of time. OR GHG model model, the the rate of discharge OUT of the whole system (atmosphere included) could be less than the rate of daytime charge causing energy to be stored. (up to the capacity of the reservoir -- and this is where we are NOT gonna get back into whether "CO2 stores heat"
That's correct -- if you look at it from energy in/out standpoint. But if I turn that heater off, it's ability to MAINTAIN a watts/sq meter Power stream would depend on it's capacity to store heat. Fill it with oil and the thermostat won't click on/off as often to maintain temperature. If I toss a thermal blanket over it (PLEASE DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME) I can't change the total energy budget -- but I sure can RAISE the temperature of the heater surface over time. Time RATES of power flow is the difference between power flow and energy capacity.
Can't really do it that way. But I CAN describe a situation where power is constantly radiated and virtually none comes in --- it's called nighttime.. And to your favor -- some brilliant scientists have used that trick to show NO correlation between desert night-time lows and increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. Essentially taking the sun forcing function completely out of the equation. That one experiment has done more to make me a skeptic denier than any other single piece of evidence.
Like I said -- I BELIEVE -- the paths on the right side of that graphic are not meant to balance the left side flows. Using my reservoir analogy, the left side is the "charging" function and the right side seems to be the "discharge" function.. Because I care WireBender -- I'll sleuth out the source and see if that's correct.
The heat retained by global warming is trapped heat.
Without it we'd all freeze to death.
The heat radiates into space - but is replaced by the incoming radiation from the sun. If you make the atmosphere more able to absorb infrared radiation, the equilibrium temperature will rise.
Really?...Where and when was that one performed and repeated?No, actually, we do not know that.
The proof that GHGs can absorb IR is a SIMPLE experiment. Anyone with a specrophotometer can do it. Since there's a principle called Conservation of Energy, where does that energy go, if not to keep heat on earth? Now it's your turn to answer a question. BTW, statistically only 50% would be re-emitted towards space. What would the other half be doing?
