Once Again, Skeptics do the Math that Warmists Won't Do....

[SSDD]

So Billy, you agree you've disproven your own "The sun did it!" hypothesis by declaring there's no tropospheric hot spot?

Why do you suppose the sun would cause a tropospheric hot spot?

 

[SSDD]

http://www.climatedialogue.org/wp-c...ded-summary-the-missing-tropical-hot-spot.pdf

that covers most of the debating points, by some of those involved.

personally I think Santer preferring 'reanalyzed' data and wind shear over balloons and satellites is a little suspicious.

A milllion radiosondes can't find a hot spot but a few hours "analyzing" the data finds one? Classic climate science. If the actual data don't support your claim just make some shit up.

 

[IanC]

The skeptical cause is hurt by those who deny CO2 can have influence what so ever. That said, it is past time for another thread on the failures to show the 'hotspot'. Interested?

Radiative gasses enhance the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself ....they don't inhibit it. Greenhouse gasses are cooling agents, not warming agents.

explain in your own words how CO2 is a cooling agent.

 

[SSDD]

And that's why nobody wastes any time on you.

And once again, the hairball couldn't possibly be more wrong... take a look at the stats hairball...Billybob has almost 500 trophy points to your nearly 200....clearly your analysis is about as good as climate science expects.

 

[SSDD]

The skeptical cause is hurt by those who deny CO2 can have influence what so ever. That said, it is past time for another thread on the failures to show the 'hotspot'. Interested?

Radiative gasses enhance the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself ....they don't inhibit it. Greenhouse gasses are cooling agents, not warming agents.

explain in your own words how CO2 is a cooling agent.

Been done before Ian....I am through explaining to you only to have you "interpret" what I say into something I didn't say and then watch you argue against your interpretation rather than what I said.

 

[IanC]

http://www.climatedialogue.org/wp-c...ded-summary-the-missing-tropical-hot-spot.pdf

that covers most of the debating points, by some of those involved.

personally I think Santer preferring 'reanalyzed' data and wind shear over balloons and satellites is a little suspicious.

A milllion radiosondes can't find a hot spot but a few hours "analyzing" the data finds one? Classic climate science. If the actual data don't support your claim just make some shit up.

just out of curiosity, did you read the dialogue? did you agree with any of the participants more than another? did you learn anything?

 

[IanC]

The skeptical cause is hurt by those who deny CO2 can have influence what so ever. That said, it is past time for another thread on the failures to show the 'hotspot'. Interested?

Radiative gasses enhance the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself ....they don't inhibit it. Greenhouse gasses are cooling agents, not warming agents.

explain in your own words how CO2 is a cooling agent.

Been done before Ian....I am through explaining to you only to have you "interpret" what I say into something I didn't say and then watch you argue against your interpretation rather than what I said.

as you wish. you have no reasoned opinions, just talking points that you cannot defend in any meaningful way.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The skeptical cause is hurt by those who deny CO2 can have influence what so ever. That said, it is past time for another thread on the failures to show the 'hotspot'. Interested?

Radiative gasses enhance the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself ....they don't inhibit it. Greenhouse gasses are cooling agents, not warming agents.

explain in your own words how CO2 is a cooling agent.

Wow! He's getting worse.

 

[mamooth]

And once again, the hairball couldn't possibly be more wrong... take a look at the stats hairball...Billybob has almost 500 trophy points to your nearly 200....clearly your analysis is about as good as climate science expects.

And you have ... 85.

I never looked at trophy points before. But since you brought it up, I checked it out. The standards for awarding them are here.

Trophies US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

According to that list, Billy isn't even close to meeting standards that would get him 500 trophy points. How he got those points is kind of a mystery.

My guess would be his first short run of posts got > 50% likes, which scored him a quick 300, and then another 100 or so bonus trophy points based on having trophy points. Then when everyone understood he was crazy and his thanks-to-posts ratio nosedived, the points didn't get removed.

 

[IanC]

The skeptical cause is hurt by those who deny CO2 can have influence what so ever. That said, it is past time for another thread on the failures to show the 'hotspot'. Interested?

Radiative gasses enhance the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself ....they don't inhibit it. Greenhouse gasses are cooling agents, not warming agents.

explain in your own words how CO2 is a cooling agent.

Been done before Ian....I am through explaining to you only to have you "interpret" what I say into something I didn't say and then watch you argue against your interpretation rather than what I said.

you explained CO2 as a cooling agent in your own words? I admit that I dont read all the threads here but I have never heard you explain anything substantive in your own words.

please link me up to your past explanation. thanks in advance

 

[IanC]

SSDD has some rigid opinions, and some not-so-rigid opinions. the most important Rigid opinion is that not one iota of energy can go from cool to warm. eventually he declared photons (on a day where he believed in photons) have no time or distance in their event horizon, so they 'know' where they are going. I tend to agree with him somewhat because the virtual photons that make up electrical and magnetic fields simply disappear if they cannot find a partner to transfer energy to. that said, I am pretty sure that no information can be passed faster than the speed of light.

both the warm and cool objects radiate the almost exactly identical range of photons, with the warmer object producing more photons and at a slightly higher avg energy. if the cool object STOPS radiating then the warm object has to stop radiating the same amount of energy, and at exactly the same wavelengths. where does this information come from? and how does it control the molecular collisions that form the blackbody radiation?

I see no mechanisms for this, so I will simply go back to normal physics that say every body radiates according to its temperature, and that energy transfer is the net of radiation out minus radiation in. no magical stopping of radiation in both the warm and cool bodies, in exactly the right proportions. individual events are not controlled by average conditions. average conditions are controlled by individual events.

 

[Crick]

;-)

Quantum Entanglement appears to be an FTL 'transfer' of information.

 

[Old Rocks]

But SSDD states that QE does not exist, because QM does not exist.

 

[IanC]

;-)

Quantum Entanglement appears to be an FTL 'transfer' of information.

hahahaha.....OK......smartass

I kinda meant useful information at normal conditions but yah....there are always exceptions at the edge of the envelope. wirebender (now having a reincarnation as SSDD perhaps?) and his lapdog gslack didnt like me saying that photons dont interact with each other except in the presence of matter so they brought up a case of ultra high energy gamma rays where one decomposes into a matter/antimatter pair which then interacts with the other gamma ray. it's kind of a counter example but pretty useless for describing interactions for local conditions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

SSDD has some rigid opinions, and some not-so-rigid opinions. the most important Rigid opinion is that not one iota of energy can go from cool to warm. eventually he declared photons (on a day where he believed in photons) have no time or distance in their event horizon, so they 'know' where they are going. I tend to agree with him somewhat because the virtual photons that make up electrical and magnetic fields simply disappear if they cannot find a partner to transfer energy to. that said, I am pretty sure that no information can be passed faster than the speed of light.

both the warm and cool objects radiate the almost exactly identical range of photons, with the warmer object producing more photons and at a slightly higher avg energy. if the cool object STOPS radiating then the warm object has to stop radiating the same amount of energy, and at exactly the same wavelengths. where does this information come from? and how does it control the molecular collisions that form the blackbody radiation?

I see no mechanisms for this, so I will simply go back to normal physics that say every body radiates according to its temperature, and that energy transfer is the net of radiation out minus radiation in. no magical stopping of radiation in both the warm and cool bodies, in exactly the right proportions. individual events are not controlled by average conditions. average conditions are controlled by individual events.

His smart photons certainly are unique.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

;-)

Quantum Entanglement appears to be an FTL 'transfer' of information.

Happy New Year!
I was wondering if you could take a look at this reasoning from one of the best numbers guys I've seen?

Russian Roulette Taxpayers Could Be On The Hook For Trillions In Oil Derivatives Seeking Alpha

1. Power at the earth's surface is about 500 watts per square meter, by NASA estimates from a detailed power budget.

2. That power suffices to maintain an average temperature of 291 degrees kelvin (18C).

3. The Stefan Boltzmann radiation law governs the relationship between power and temperature, and specifies that the power emitted by a radiating black body is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature (degrees kelvin).

4. By 2, an increase in mean surface temperature of 1C is a 292/291 change in the absolute temperature. By 3, that requires a (292/291)^4 increase in the total power, or a 1.38% increase in the total power. By 1, that requires 7 watts per square meter, continually operating.

5. The power presently provided by direct CO2 greenhouse is 1.6 watts per square meter, by IPCC's own estimates.

6. The mathematical relationship between CO2 concentration and greenhouse power is a logarithmic function of the atmospheric concentration. This happens because the specific wavelengths intercepted by CO2 get saturated as that concentration rises, so the first bit has the largest effect, subsequent additions have less, and so on.

7. An upper bound for the power supplied directly by doubling CO2 concentration is log 2 times the effect of the present concentration, by 6. By 5, that effect is 1.6 watts per square meter so the bound on the direct effect is 0.693 x 1.6 = 1.11 additional watts per square meter. Notice, this is less than 1/6th the figure calculated above as necessary to raise mean surface temperature by 1C.

8. If 1.1 watts if new power are supplied at the top of a water column 3 km deep, the temperature of the column will begin to rise, as 1.1 joules per second (definition of watt) enter the water as heat. The heat capacity of water is 4180 joules per kilogram per degree kelvin. The mass of water is 1000 kilograms per cubic meter. A 3 km deep column has a mass (under each surface meter) of 3 million kg and a heat capacity of 1.254x10^10 joules per degree. If the column were well mixed, it would take 9,543 years for the temperature to rise one degree, ignoring for a moment the restoring force of the higher temperature. Just the top 100 meters of the water column have a heat capacity one thirtieth part of that, implying an instantaneous rate of increase in temperature of one part in 318th of one degree per year.

9. By the reasoning above, 1.1 watts on a 500 base are a change in the total power of 1.1/500, and in the equilibrium temperature of (501.1/500)^.25 or 0.00055 of the initial absolute temperature, or 0.16 degree. The temperature cannot rise more than that at the top of the column, because as soon as the top of the column gas warmed that much, its surface is reradiating as much additional power as the new forcing supplied, putting it back into equilibrium. This will take approximately 100 years for the top 100 meters, ignoring for now the slower diffusion of heat to lower layers of the water column. That 100 comes from the 318 years per degree figure above, averaged with zero at the end of the period, and a total temperature change if 0.16 degree. The temperature will describe a slowing curve, max rate at the start, falling smoothly to zero as the reradiation term rises with the temperature of the surface.

After that century long, 0.16 degree transient, it will still take millenia or the higher temperature at the top of the water column to reach thermal equilibrium with the deeper layers, which have 30 times the heat capacity, and will load with joules slower, as the hotter surface is already reradiating most of the new incoming power.
The very long run steady state is 0.16 degree hotter throughout the entire column, but will not be reached for thousands of years.

I didn't have to look up anything to give those answers. It is enough to know any physics and think through the problem for yourself.

The 3-5C warming prediction requires 21.1 to 35.5 watts per square meter of new, continually operating power. The larger figure is equivalent to moving the earth's orbit nearer to the sun by over 3 million miles. It is also 32 times the power anyone can expect directly from CO2 greenhouse from doubling its atmospheric concentration. To raise the surface temperature even 1 degree C by direct CO2 greenhouse would require a 31 fold increase in its atmospheric concentration, by the log formula. In reality those wavelengths would be saturated and opaque from below well before such an increase.

They don't have a power budget and cannot tell any of us who know the actual physics where they expect the other 20 to 35 watts per square meter of power to come from. They just wave their hands and say climate sensitivity. Every actual power source they have proposed has been checked, and they have random signs (as many negative as positive), and all are an order of magnitude too small to account for 3-5C warming.

Then the huge warming they predicted fails to appear, and they are surprised. People who asked where the power supposedly was to come from are not surprised.

Then all hide behind lawyer phrases, dodging the hopeless miss on the basic scale of the effect. Yes there is slight warming, in the record and in the reasoning. Yes the CO2 component of that warming is plausibly man made. But it is also less than a degree in direct effect. "Well, reasonable people can disagree about how much, the important thing is that it is happening etc". No. The important thing is the amount, which is nothing to worry about, on all empirical evidence and all actually scientific reasoning.

 

[IanC]

thanks Todd. the fact that the T^4 relationship is a natural negative feedback has certainly been brought up before.

dont expect much interest in this subject. it is both mathematical and important, therefore it is a thread killer. if you want feed back from other posters you have to talk politics or make stupid statements. CO2 is used to keep things COLD US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum anyone? hahahahaha

 

[Crick]

You're aware, I assume, that the thread to which you link is from someone on your side of the argument.

BTW, math-wise, you might want to re-examine some of his basic assumptions.

SB would not tell us to look at (292/291)^4, which equals 1.0138 (not the 1.38 your author got), but (292-291)^4 which equals 1.000. Neither takes us from 5 W to 7.

EDIT: My bad. SB would use (292-291)/291 for the increased power required. That gives an increased power requirement factor of 1.0034.

Your author's treatment of the atmosphere, assuming the CO2 effect is saturated and the atmosphere static and passive, was refuted by Hulbert in the 1930s and Plass in the 1950s.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're aware, I assume, that the thread to which you link is from someone on your side of the argument.

BTW, math-wise, you might want to re-examine some of his basic assumptions.

SB would not tell us to look at (292/291)^4, which equals 1.0138 (not the 1.38 your author got), but (292-291)^4 which equals 1.000. Neither takes us from 5 W to 7.

EDIT: My bad. SB would use (292-291)/291 for the increased power required. That gives an increased power requirement factor of 1.0034.

Your author's treatment of the atmosphere, assuming the CO2 effect is saturated and the atmosphere static and passive, was refuted by Hulbert in the 1930s and Plass in the 1950s.

which equals 1.0138 (not the 1.38 your author got)

Yeah, you left off the % sign. He got 1.38%.

 

[Crick]

No, he didn't. 1.0138 is not 1.38%. It could be 101.38%, but that's not the same thing either and doesn't take you from 5W to 7W. He just fucked up the math.