Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[ding]

ding

You want an experiment to directly measure the LWave IR back radiation from A REAL SKY anywhere in the world? At LEAST 80 studies out there that do exactly that. That cuts your goalpost for experimental evidence at least in half.

You can stop laughing when they attribute everything they measured to a 22 ppm change in the amount of CO2 between start/end of the measurements. LOL. ALTHOUGH the CO2 very likely was a major contributor.

There are others like this that measure the back rad (reflected radiative heat) from the GHouse.

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010 - PubMed

The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth's radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
D R Feldman 1, W D Collins 2, P J Gero 3, M S Torn 4, E J Mlawer 5, T R Shippert 6
Affiliations expand
PMID: 25731165 DOI: 10.1038/nature14240
Free article
Abstract
The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth's radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W m(-2) (ref. 2). However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations-the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska-are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m(-2) per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m(-2) per decade and ±0.07 W m(-2) per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1-0.2 W m(-2). This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.

Not a real sky, no. A lab test. That can directly measure temperature differences.

 

[ding]

I can give you the equation to get from .2W/m2 to a surface temp change and we could also check the forcing function for CO2 with a 22 ppm change.

All this GETS YOU NEAR the "experimental proof" if you at least attribute SOME of the increase they measured on CO2 -- which is a fine bet.

I want something more controlled that I don't have to bet on.

 

[gtopa1]

I dunno much about nuffink, but I do know that it was real nutjobs who pushed whatever was happening was the fault of the US and Capitalism. This was despite me knowing for a fact that the Commy blox were the most polluting in the world and the West was "cleaning up its act".

So their theory? Stuff them. Sounded like rubbish then and nothing has changed much. It is NOT colder than 1974!!! That's all I'm sayin'.

Plus the dodgy bastards were found out:



Greg

 

[flacaltenn]

I want something more controlled that I don't have to bet on.

You have the measurements of the GH heat reflection back to the surface. They CHANGED by .2W/m2 from 2000 to 2010. (roughly the period of the famous "hiatus" when GW slowed to a crawl but but but)

And the Earth proceeded to get WARMER. Like I said, that part is NOT instantaneous. So you now can say at the very least that the GHouse is NOT a constant and the "blanket" is getting slightly thicker.

Attribute that to ANYTHING that strikes your fancy... THAT part has been measured. Not JUST in this one study. Is it more DIRECT solar rad at the surface? Is it more H2O vapor? Is it URBANIZATION and changing the albedo of the surface?

Or is it actually that we KNOW CO2 has been steadily linearly increasing in our lifetimes by small amount in respect to a doubling of it?

 

[ding]

You have the measurements of the GH heat reflection back to the surface. They CHANGED by .2W/m2 from 2000 to 2010. (roughly the period of the famous "hiatus" when GW slowed to a crawl but but but)

And the Earth proceeded to get WARMER. Like I said, that part is NOT instantaneous. So you now can say at the very least that the GHouse is NOT a constant and the "blanket" is getting slightly thicker.

Attribute that to ANYTHING that strikes your fancy... THAT part has been measured. Not JUST in this one study. Is it more DIRECT solar rad at the surface? Is it more H2O vapor? Is it URBANIZATION and changing the albedo of the surface?

Or is it actually that we KNOW CO2 has been steadily linearly increasing in our lifetimes by small amount in respect to a doubling of it?

That is my point. We still don't know because there are too many variables. Why do you think they have never done a controlled experiment? Where they eliminate all other variables so that there's no doubt about it?

 

[flacaltenn]

I dunno much about nuffink, but I do know that it was real nutjobs who pushed whatever was happening was the fault of the US and Capitalism. This was despite me knowing for a fact that the Commy blox were the most polluting in the world and the West was "cleaning up its act".

So their theory? Stuff them. Sounded like rubbish then and nothing has changed much. It is NOT colder than 1974!!! That's all I'm sayin'.

Plus the dodgy bastards were found out:



Greg

That was fun to watch. He's pretty honest and brutal about opinions on other scientists! I love it when primadonnas fight.

I would recommend that to anyone that believes that scientists are infallible and totally objective. ESPECIALLY with what they tell the public versus what say in papers and conferences.

 

[flacaltenn]

That is my point. We still don't know because there are too many variables. Why do you think they have never done a controlled experiment? Where they eliminate all other variables so that there's no doubt about it?

Geez ding. You're a tough customer. I give you better than a CONTROLLED experiment -- those studies MEASURE THE GHouse retardation. BY LOOKING AT IT.

I think you WANT to believe that CO2 doesn't have a role here. Even I dont accept the superpowers that some of the more catastrophic theories give to this minority gas. But it IS a player. And it's not worth "cancelling" just because you dont believe physics and chemistry of it is worth anything to the GHouse.

If LAB experiments are what you want -- they've also been done. Not with weather and seasonal changes in CO2 or accurately atmospheric water vapor variations and all that. You measure the gases basics physics and chemistry and then you model all of that until you get it right.

 

[ding]

Geez ding. You're a tough customer. I give you better than a CONTROLLED experiment -- those studies MEASURE THE GHouse retardation. BY LOOKING AT IT.

I think you WANT to believe that CO2 doesn't have a role here. Even I dont accept the superpowers that some of the more catastrophic theories give to this minority gas. But it IS a player. And it's not worth "cancelling" just because you dont believe physics and chemistry of it is worth anything to the GHouse.

If LAB experiments are what you want -- they've also been done. Not with weather and seasonal changes in CO2 or accurately atmospheric water vapor variations and all that. You measure the gases basics physics and chemistry and then you model all of that until you get it right.

Yes, I am a tough customer. I have trust issues with them. I do believe there is a greenhouse gas effect but I don't trust them when they tell me it's transient and takes a really really long time for it's effects to be felt. That seems to go against the concept of a greenhouse gas. So because of that I want to see an experiment where a volume of gas (air) is heated up (radiant heat) and allowed to cool down and then repeat that experiment with varying concentrations of CO2 and compare the difference in cool down times to measure the temperature differentials.

 

[ReinyDays]

I can give you the equation to get from .2W/m2 to a surface temp change and we could also check the forcing function for CO2 with a 22 ppm change.

All this GETS YOU NEAR the "experimental proof" if you at least attribute SOME of the increase they measured on CO2 -- which is a fine bet.

[ ... can't resist math baiting ... ]

I have that equation right here in my Christmas stocking ... Temperature = (0.2 W/m^2 / (4 (5.67x10^-8 W/m^2/K^4))^0.25 ≈ 0.032ºC ... where are we going to find a world-wide network of thermometers that measure down to the hundredth of degree? ...

In this thread ... temperature is proportional to the fourth root of irradiance ... accept no alternatives ...

ETA: oops ...
Temperature = (0.2 W/m^2 / (5.67x10^-8 W/m^2/K^4)^0.25 ≈ 0.043ºC
My bad ...

 

[Crick]

Yes, I am a tough customer. I have trust issues with them. I do believe there is a greenhouse gas effect but I don't trust them when they tell me it's transient and takes a really really long time for it's effects to be felt. That seems to go against the concept of a greenhouse gas. So because of that I want to see an experiment where a volume of gas (air) is heated up (radiant heat) and allowed to cool down and then repeat that experiment with varying concentrations of CO2 and compare the difference in cool down times to measure the temperature differentials.

What makes you think cool down time is a better way to measure temperature differential than simply measuring the temperatures?

 

[ding]

What makes you think cool down time is a better way to measure temperature differential than simply measuring the temperatures?

Controlled experiment.

 

[Crick]

No shit Sherlock. How about an actual answer to my question?

 

[ding]

No shit Sherlock. How about an actual answer to my question?

That was my response. And use the reply button, dummy.

 

[themirrorthief]

Too many threads are ending up with the same 20 page discussion between a small fraction of the members that read Enviro topics.. Every rule and design of USMB moderation is there to get UNIQUE TOPICAL discussion of specific events and topics as laid out in the Opening Posts. No one wants to wade thru the same fillibustering arguments that atmospheric physics and the GHouse effect is all wrong.. And they violate the "on-topic" rules at USMB..

That's what this thread is for.. CONTAIN those rodeos in THIS thread or start your own threads on whatever you deny.... DON'T hijack other specific topics.. Members and visitors will appreciate your cooperation...

Go have your sideline debates about this topic HERE.. The topic is clearly spelled out in the title of this thread...

nobody seems to care that the sky is falling

 

[ding]

nobody seems to care that the sky is falling

That's probably because it isn't.

 

[ReinyDays]

What makes you think cool down time is a better way to measure temperature differential than simply measuring the temperatures?

Ding's experiment tests the thermodynamics of the system ... something you don't seem to know much about ... however, I think just shining a light on a gas-filled vessel and measure the temperature is good enough ... if one used monochromatic light and went though all the wavelengths of concern ...

Better ... point out a place on Earth and tell us how the climate has changed ...

 

[jc456]

Ding's experiment tests the thermodynamics of the system ... something you don't seem to know much about ... however, I think just shining a light on a gas-filled vessel and measure the temperature is good enough ... if one used monochromatic light and went though all the wavelengths of concern ...

Better ... point out a place on Earth and tell us how the climate has changed ...

so then we'd see how warm 120 PPM of CO2 is? Cool, why isn't anyone doing it then?

 

[Crick]

That was my response ["controlled experiment"]. And use the reply button, dummy.

Okay, dummy. Your response isn't. Try again: "What makes you think cool down time is a better way to measure temperature differential than simply measuring the temperatures"?

 

[ding]

Okay, dummy. Your response isn't. Try again: "What makes you think cool down time is a better way to measure temperature differential than simply measuring the temperatures"?

Because it is a direct measurement of temperature and because the GHG effect is effectively a chokes the transfer of heat from earth to outer space (i.e. the earth cooling down).

 

[ding]

No one is questioning the greenhouse effect of an atmosphere. Just the effect of changing concentrations.

let’s see the direct measurement of associated temperature of varying concentrations of CO2.