Nye's Quadrant

[IanC]

Definition 4
A proposed new definition of the greenhouse theory to overcome the objections raised against warming by back radiation argues that IR absorbing ‘greenhouse gases’ hinder radiative transport from the Earth’s surface upwards and aid to keep the surface warm and warmer than it would otherwise be in the absence of those gases.

The Critique
The definition ignores the fact that those gases themselves emit radiation to free space adding to radiation loss from the system. Radiation loss to free space from the earth’s surface and its atmosphere is essentially the same with or without presence of absorbing gases for the following reasons: the cooling by radiation to free space is a one-step process; in the presence of an atmosphere, it is a two-step process with the same loss, with or without, the absorbing and emitting gaseous atmosphere. When talking about radiation, it is absorbed radiation or emitted radiation that is being considered.

I read the whole thing over at NTZ and I agree that many of the points have some merit but they are taken out of context of the complete system.

Take #4 which you quoted above. A simple analogy is a water hose. Once it is filled (!!!) then the water input equals the water output. That does not mean that there is no water in the hose, or that that reservoir of water has no function in moving water from one place to another.

We can take that analogy further by examining a hydro dam. The water input is variable but the water output is stable, with the reservoir used as a buffer to smooth out the swings in water input.

Let's compare this to the Sun/Earth energy cycle. Highly energetic solar radiation warms any spot on Earth with a sine-like intensity for daylight hours followed by no radiation in the night. The surface releases this energy by diffuse IR radiation. With no atmosphere the surface would be much warmer in daylight and much cooler at night.

An atmosphere smooths these extremes out, once the reservoir of energy is built up, like the dam or the water hose. Solar energy is stored in the atmosphere as kinetic and potential energy in the gravity field, and released in a relatively stable flow rather than the extremes that would be caused by solar input and no atmosphere.

Back to the criticism #4. Without CO2,a certain portion of surface radiation would escape directly to cold space. Instead, it is Incorporated into the total energy of the atmosphere which is constantly transforming it back and forth between kinetic, potential and radiation energies. It is not just a minor difference between a one step or two step escape. The second step is a whole complex atmospheric system that radically changes the thermal transport equilibriums.

 

[SSDD]

Ian...there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science...if there were, then the models would be able to mimic reality...they don't even come close...the physics that they are based upon is pure fiction and fantasy which is why their output is also fiction and fantasy.

N&Z just had a revision of their paper published which answers all of the questions raised about their first paper...they are onto the truth and eventually, the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science is going to be tossed out...when you have one theory that correctly predicts the temperature of any rocky planet and is based on fully vetted observations and is chock full of observed, measured, quantified data...and a hypothesis which can only predict the temperature of one planet, and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor and is completely lacking observed, measured, quantified data either as its basis, or its predictions...I can't think of a single reason to give even the slightest creedence to the second or a reason to give anyone who believes the second any credit for rational thinking at all....can you?

 

[IanC]

Ian...there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science...if there were, then the models would be able to mimic reality...they don't even come close...the physics that they are based upon is pure fiction and fantasy which is why their output is also fiction and fantasy.

N&Z just had a revision of their paper published which answers all of the questions raised about their first paper...they are onto the truth and eventually, the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science is going to be tossed out...when you have one theory that correctly predicts the temperature of any rocky planet and is based on fully vetted observations and is chock full of observed, measured, quantified data...and a hypothesis which can only predict the temperature of one planet, and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor and is completely lacking observed, measured, quantified data either as its basis, or its predictions...I can't think of a single reason to give even the slightest creedence to the second or a reason to give anyone who believes the second any credit for rational thinking at all....can you?

Why have you changed the subject? Start a new thread on N&Z. It would be about time, as I have been asking you to debate it for years. Is the new iteration substantially different?

 

[IanC]

Definition 3
A regular description of the ‘greenhouse gas’ heating mechanism is that referred to as ‘back radiation’. Atmospheric gases such as CO2, having a dipole moment, absorb some incoming solar radiation and some of the IR radiation the Earth’s surface radiates toward free space. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, ‘re-radiated energy in the IR portion of the spectrum is trapped within the atmosphere keeping the surface temperature warm’. This ‘trapping’ is assumed to occur as the surface radiates to the atmosphere and the atmosphere radiates back to the surface.

The Critique
The radiation emitted from the warmer surface absorbed by the colder atmosphere is readily detected by orbiting satellites. However, back radiation from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface heating the surface further violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

There are two problems with that amount of down-welling radiation: the atmosphere is not a blackbody with unit emissivity and equally, is not radiating toward a receptive absorber. Yet it is depicted as radiating heat downwards to the warmer Earth’s surface in direct violation of the Second Law.

The flow of heat is always from the hotter surface to the colder surface as required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Nowhere in the radiation field between the two surfaces is the flux of radiant energy equal to that which either surface would emit if they were facing a complete void. Thus, the simple use of the Stefan-Boltzmann term, δT4 to characterize the emission from a source of radiation in the manner that depends only on the temperature of the source without considering the temperature of the surroundings receiving the radiation, is a misapplication of the equation and the notion that a colder source can transfer radiant energy to a warmer object is a misapplication of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

It would therefore be clear that the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann term to simply characterize radiant energy being transferred from an object to its surroundings without reference to the conditions of the surroundings in radiative contact with that object is a misapplication of the equation.

First things first. This is a direct rebuttal of your use of the second S-B equation. As I have stated before, the differences in emissivity demand that the transfer of energy between two objects must be calculated individually, with the net power being one side of the equation being subtracted from the other.

Heat always goes from warm to cool. The net heat amount is the warming influence of one object less the warming influence of the other.

This criticism #3 attempts to isolate atmospheric radiation and say that it is being claimed that it will warm the surface. It will not, does not. However it does reduce the cooling off the surface, if you isolated that by itself. Both objects are radiating at the same time. The amount and direction of net energy flow is dependent on both influences.

Earth's surface radiates~ 400w but the solar input is less than 200w. The difference is made up by the warming influence coming from the atmosphere. If there was nothing coming back from the atmosphere then the excess surface radiation would quickly and dramatically cool the surface.

 

[IanC]

Another criticism from your article-

Definition 2
Another common theme among the various descriptions of the effect is that the ‘greenhouse gases’ serve as a ‘blanket’ keeping the earth warm.

The Critique
A simple experiment to test the validity of this argument is to appear naked outside on a cold evening and observe how long the blanket of ‘greenhouse gases’ in the atmosphere keeps you warm. Air warmed by body heat rises by buoyancy and is replaced by cooler air from the surroundings, causing rapid cooling down and shivering. An actual blanket is a flexible insulating enclosure that reduces the rate at which body heat is lost to the surroundings. Thus the atmosphere is more given to being an agent for cooling by way of natural convection

- See more at: NoTricksZone: "Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" – Jacob Bronowski. "Fake and vulgar" climate news from Germany in English – by Pierre L. Gosselin

The atmosphere keeps the surface both warmer and cooler than it would be, but at a warmer average temperature because radiation is proportional to the fourth power of temperature.

GHGs are integral to the atmosphere and allow it to store more total energy. It is a stupid argument to say a person wouldn't be at a more comfortable temperature without it. Try standing on the Moon, you would either fry or freeze depending on whether the Sun was up.

 

[IanC]

Definition 6
All atmospheric gases that are believed to be ‘greenhouse gases’ absorb IR radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface. Their absorption spectra are well known and it is relatively easy to calculate the radiation flux, those gases absorb from the Earth’s IR emission.

The Critique
The problem arises when those radiation fluxes are translated into a resultant temperature rise while ignoring the fact that atmospheric gas is being simultaneously cooled by radiating to the unlimited sink of free space.

- See more at: NoTricksZone: "Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" – Jacob Bronowski. "Fake and vulgar" climate news from Germany in English – by Pierre L. Gosselin]

I have no problem with this. Although it does not make any effort to quantity or compare the amount of energy absorbed at the surface with respect to the amount released at the TOA. In the specific case of CO2, the amount absorbed at the surface is lower than what is released higher up. Not only that but it warms the near surface by absorption and cools the upper levels by emission. Even if the emission/ absorption we're equal it would still affect the temperature gradient and lapse rate.

 

[SSDD]

Why have you changed the subject? Start a new thread on N&Z. It would be about time, as I have been asking you to debate it for years. Is the new iteration substantially different?

There is nothing to debate...they crushed all the complaints you and yours had regarding the first paper...

 

[SSDD]

First things first. This is a direct rebuttal of your use of the second S-B equation. As I have stated before, the differences in emissivity demand that the transfer of energy between two objects must be calculated individually, with the net power being one side of the equation being subtracted from the other.

I have always said that the use of the SB equation in so far as the greenhouse hypothesis goes was incorrect...gasses aren't black bodies....Let me know when you get an actual measurement of two way energy movement...good luck with that.

You are operating on faith...no measurement...no observation...no quantification...nothing more than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...it is sad that you have been duped so thoroughly by post modern science...

 

[SSDD]

The atmosphere keeps the surface both warmer and cooler than it would be, but at a warmer average temperature because radiation is proportional to the fourth power of temperature.

Gasses are not black bodies...application of the SB law is, and always has been wrong.

GHGs are integral to the atmosphere and allow it to store more total energy. It is a stupid argument to say a person wouldn't be at a more comfortable temperature without it. Try standing on the Moon, you would either fry or freeze depending on whether the Sun was up.

Faith...nothing more...do you know what happens when you put CO2 in a double glazed window as opposed to a non radiative gas like argon? Which one actually slows the escape of energy...the CO2 or argon?....observation ian...measurement...quantification...when you actually test the hypothesis...it fails...if CO2 were able to slow the escape of energy, then your double glazed windows would be full of CO2 rather than a gas like argon which doesn't absorb and emit energy...CO2 acts as a cooling agent in between panes of glass and out in the atmosphere.

 

[SSDD]

Definition 6
All atmospheric gases that are believed to be ‘greenhouse gases’ absorb IR radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface. Their absorption spectra are well known and it is relatively easy to calculate the radiation flux, those gases absorb from the Earth’s IR emission.

The Critique
The problem arises when those radiation fluxes are translated into a resultant temperature rise while ignoring the fact that atmospheric gas is being simultaneously cooled by radiating to the unlimited sink of free space.

- See more at: NoTricksZone: "Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" – Jacob Bronowski. "Fake and vulgar" climate news from Germany in English – by Pierre L. Gosselin]

I have no problem with this. Although it does not make any effort to quantity or compare the amount of energy absorbed at the surface with respect to the amount released at the TOA. In the specific case of CO2, the amount absorbed at the surface is lower than what is released higher up. Not only that but it warms the near surface by absorption and cools the upper levels by emission. Even if the emission/ absorption we're equal it would still affect the temperature gradient and lapse rate.

Sorry ian...CO2 doesn't warm anything...again, your entire position is based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...models which have failed SPECTACULARLY....the very fact that the greenhouse hypothesis can't predict the temperature anywhere but here...and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor should clue you in but does it?...not no...but hell ho...you are a believer...an acolyte...a dogma spouting follower. You have been rendered incapable of questioning the failed greenhouse hypothesis in your mind.. It can never occur to you to ask why the greenhouse hypothesis can't predict the temperature anywhere but here...ask yourself why you don't seem to be able to ask yourself that.

 

[IanC]

Why have you changed the subject? Start a new thread on N&Z. It would be about time, as I have been asking you to debate it for years. Is the new iteration substantially different?

There is nothing to debate...they crushed all the complaints you and yours had regarding the first paper...

Whatever. Keep your secrets.

 

[IanC]

First things first. This is a direct rebuttal of your use of the second S-B equation. As I have stated before, the differences in emissivity demand that the transfer of energy between two objects must be calculated individually, with the net power being one side of the equation being subtracted from the other.

I have always said that the use of the SB equation in so far as the greenhouse hypothesis goes was incorrect...gasses aren't black bodies....Let me know when you get an actual measurement of two way energy movement...good luck with that.

You are operating on faith...no measurement...no observation...no quantification...nothing more than an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...it is sad that you have been duped so thoroughly by post modern science...

Let me know when you get an actual measurement of radiation ceasing from an object when a warmer one comes into proximity. Good luck with that, hahahaha

Radiation is created by internal conditions of the emitting piece of matter, not by the local property of temperature for the environment, which doesn't even measure the total energy.

 

[IanC]

The atmosphere keeps the surface both warmer and cooler than it would be, but at a warmer average temperature because radiation is proportional to the fourth power of temperature.

Gasses are not black bodies...application of the SB law is, and always has been wrong.

GHGs are integral to the atmosphere and allow it to store more total energy. It is a stupid argument to say a person wouldn't be at a more comfortable temperature without it. Try standing on the Moon, you would either fry or freeze depending on whether the Sun was up.

Faith...nothing more...do you know what happens when you put CO2 in a double glazed window as opposed to a non radiative gas like argon? Which one actually slows the escape of energy...the CO2 or argon?....observation ian...measurement...quantification...when you actually test the hypothesis...it fails...if CO2 were able to slow the escape of energy, then your double glazed windows would be full of CO2 rather than a gas like argon which doesn't absorb and emit energy...CO2 acts as a cooling agent in between panes of glass and out in the atmosphere.

Non sequitur. Most of the efficiency of double pane windows is simply having two panes, close enough to impede convection but separated enough to impede conduction.

 

[IanC]

Definition 6
All atmospheric gases that are believed to be ‘greenhouse gases’ absorb IR radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface. Their absorption spectra are well known and it is relatively easy to calculate the radiation flux, those gases absorb from the Earth’s IR emission.

The Critique
The problem arises when those radiation fluxes are translated into a resultant temperature rise while ignoring the fact that atmospheric gas is being simultaneously cooled by radiating to the unlimited sink of free space.

- See more at: NoTricksZone: "Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" – Jacob Bronowski. "Fake and vulgar" climate news from Germany in English – by Pierre L. Gosselin]

I have no problem with this. Although it does not make any effort to quantity or compare the amount of energy absorbed at the surface with respect to the amount released at the TOA. In the specific case of CO2, the amount absorbed at the surface is lower than what is released higher up. Not only that but it warms the near surface by absorption and cools the upper levels by emission. Even if the emission/ absorption we're equal it would still affect the temperature gradient and lapse rate.

Sorry ian...CO2 doesn't warm anything...again, your entire position is based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...models which have failed SPECTACULARLY....the very fact that the greenhouse hypothesis can't predict the temperature anywhere but here...and then only with an ad hoc fudge factor should clue you in but does it?...not no...but hell ho...you are a believer...an acolyte...a dogma spouting follower. You have been rendered incapable of questioning the failed greenhouse hypothesis in your mind.. It can never occur to you to ask why the greenhouse hypothesis can't predict the temperature anywhere but here...ask yourself why you don't seem to be able to ask yourself that.

The ability of CO2 to absorb and emit certain bands of IR radiation is well known by empirical data from experiment.

 

[mamooth]

Sure...it is easy to calculate anything if you do it with ad hoc fudge factors...

What's the fudge factor in the standard greenhouse effect calculation?

T = [S(1-A)/(4*sigma)] ^ 1/4

A = Average albedo, 0.3

S = solar radiation flux, 1367 W/m^2

sigma = S-B constant.

Which leads to T = 255K. That's compared to an average temp on earth of about 288K, showing a 33k greenhouse effect.

You just told everyone that has a fudge factor in it. According to the paper you say is perfect, the real greenhouse effect is 90K. So, specifically identify this mysterious fudge factor for us, the one that supposedly changes things by 57K. If you weren't pushing a fraud, that should be easy for you. Please proceed.

Sorry hairball..but you couldn't be more wrong...but than that is how you roll...right?

You didn't answer. Why did you and your masters have to fudge the Mars data? I'll answer. "Because it showed your theory was wrong."

here...read the paper for yourself.

Did. Pointed out the obvious flaws in it.You didn't want to talk about them.

You might want to address one of Spencer's points as well. Temperatures in the stratosphere are essentially the same all through all of it, despite a hundredfold pressure difference from top to bottom. That real world observation destroys your "pressure causes heat" theory. Do you have a way to rescue it?

 

[SSDD]

Why have you changed the subject? Start a new thread on N&Z. It would be about time, as I have been asking you to debate it for years. Is the new iteration substantially different?

There is nothing to debate...they crushed all the complaints you and yours had regarding the first paper...

Whatever. Keep your secrets.

What secrets...its all right there in the paper...no obscure language...no hidden methodology...no secret programing...all right there in the open to be duplicated by anyone who cares to do it.

 

[SSDD]

Let me know when you get an actual measurement of radiation ceasing from an object when a warmer one comes into proximity. Good luck with that, hahahaha

Geez ian...don't you ever think...since you can't measure radiation moving from a cooler object towards a warmer object, don't you think it stands to reason that it isn't happening?...Why do you suppose you can't measure it other than the fact that it isn't moving in that direction?

 

[SSDD]

Non sequitur. Most of the efficiency of double pane windows is simply having two panes, close enough to impede convection but separated enough to impede conduction.

No ian...if it were just two panes, then there would be no difference between filling the space with argon and filling the space with CO2...there is a difference...the window that is full of CO2 will transmit the energy from the warmer side of the glass much much faster than the window that is full of argon...that should tell you something if you weren't so brainwashed in the dogma.

 

[SSDD]

The ability of CO2 to absorb and emit certain bands of IR radiation is well known by empirical data from experiment.

So what? Absorption and emission do not equal warming.

 

[SSDD]

Sure...it is easy to calculate anything if you do it with ad hoc fudge factors...

What's the fudge factor in the standard greenhouse effect calculation?

T = [S(1-A)/(4*sigma)] ^ 1/4

A = Average albedo, 0.3

S = solar radiation flux, 1367 W/m^2

sigma = S-B constant.

Which leads to T = 255K. That's compared to an average temp on earth of about 288K, showing a 33k greenhouse effect.

Idiot...C over Co represents the increase in CO2....the question was what would happen if CO2 doubled...hansen decided the fudge factor would be 5.35 times the natural log of 2, which is 3.7 watts per square meter....and rather than call it a fudge factor, he named it forcing...sounds better...right? More marketable...sounds like someone actually did some research and could prove that with the doubling of CO2 the energy change would be 5.35 times the natural log of 2, which is 3.7 watts per square meter.

Any idea where saturation might be in that fudge factor? Saturation is very important but not found within the greenhouse effect calculations? The fudge factor also removes all influences from natural variations....imagine...a hypothesis RE: the climate whose only support is a mathematical model that doesn't recognize natural variation...

In short, the fudge factor is a fill in for a mechanism that could not be found or even synthesized....it was an ad hoc construct put in place of a mechanism that doesn't exist..