Over 4.5 Billion to die by 2012

[PMZ]

Not to mention that because of its heat capacity, there would be little difference between the outgoing radiation from the oceans from day to night. The claim from climate science has been all along that backradiation is happening, and warming the surface 24 hours a day.

Guess now they are going to try and weasel out of that claim...like trenberth first claiming that global warming was hiding below the oceans and now claiming that global warming is a roaming hot spot that never sticks around for long and then moves to some other location. Grabbing at straws....drowning men grabbing at straws.

You act like someone who has some data, some evidence, some theory that explains what GHGs do instead of what science has unequivocally proven that they do. That’s monumental. When will it be made public?

All science has proven unequivocally is that So called greenhouse gases absorb then emit. That is a far cry from proving man-made global warming. You apparently have no idea what climate science has been saying for the past 20 years..... Or should I say since the Ice Age scare died out

GHG's absorb and emit longwave radiation in the same range as land, water, ice, and atmosphere emit. There is no alternative that's ever been theorized other than that reduces outgoing radiation and redirects it back to warm the earth. There's no other theory than the one that says the more molecules of GHGs there are in the atmosphere, the more pronounced the imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy will be. There's no other theory than the one that says under those conditions the earth will warm until energy balance is reactive.

So, there is no science that supports what you wish was true. No theory, no data, no anything.

100 to zero. You're scoreless.

 

[SSDD]

You act like someone who has some data, some evidence, some theory that explains what GHGs do instead of what science has unequivocally proven that they do. That’s monumental. When will it be made public?

All science has proven unequivocally is that So called greenhouse gases absorb then emit. That is a far cry from proving man-made global warming. You apparently have no idea what climate science has been saying for the past 20 years..... Or should I say since the Ice Age scare died out

GHG's absorb and emit longwave radiation in the same range as land, water, ice, and atmosphere emit. There is no alternative that's ever been theorized other than that reduces outgoing radiation and redirects it back to warm the earth. There's no other theory than the one that says the more molecules of GHGs there are in the atmosphere, the more pronounced the imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy will be. There's no other theory than the one that says under those conditions the earth will warm until energy balance is reactive.

So, there is no science that supports what you wish was true. No theory, no data, no anything.

100 to zero. You're scoreless.

Sorry but you're wrong the atmospheric thermal effect explains the temperature on Earth without a greenhouse effect. And the greenhouse effect fails to accurately predict the temperature of every other planet in the solar system with atmosphere

 

[flacaltenn]

There is an experiment that I can, and have performed in my back yard that would prove backradiation if it existed. You can do it as well for less than 25 dollars. Build yourself a small solar oven (I can provide plans). Aim it at clear sky on a sunny day. Place a thermometer at the focal point of the oven and watch the temperature decrease. If backradiation existed, the temperature would increase as it would be collecting backradiation.

Wait till nightfall when the temperature is above freezing but not more than 45 degrees F. Point your oven at clear sky and place a bowl of water at the focal point of the oven. Ice will form even though the ambient temperature is above freezing. If backradiation were happening, that could not happen. Observable, repeatable, positive proof that backradiation is not happening.

Aside from that, the second law of thermodynamics says that backradiation is not possible. How much more proof do you need? An experiment that produces the very result predicted by the second law of themrodynamics proving that backradiation is not happening...and I wager that you will continue to believe in backradiation.

Both your experiment, and the 2ond Law, deal with net energy flow. All of your apparatus is radiating away based only on its absolute temperature.

Of course they are radiating out your moron that's exactly what the second law predicts. The atmosphere is colder than the ground. If however back radiation were happening sufficient to warm the surface of the earth which, by the way, Is the basis of the greenhouse effect hypothesis, then the solar oven would be collecting that back radiation and you wouldn't see a temperature drop to below the ambient.

Not true --- the "solar oven" trope ignores the math of back-radiation..

There is a NET EXCHANGE of over 70w/m2 of power GOING SKYWARD to atmosphere. The NET FLUX is towards the cooler object just as radiative physics tells you..

No violation of 2nd law if the NET is in obeyance with entropy flow..

The warming of the surface DOES NOT COME from back radiation.. It comes from the fact that the sun pumps approx the SAME AMOUNT of energy into a system that has had it's "cooling rate" reduced.. It's the radiative physics analogy to adding insulation, but not turning down the input energy..

The solar oven SHOULD be "below ambient" because what's coming down is much less than what's going up.. ((But indeed, it's much higher than if the atmos DIDN'T retain heat at all))

But -------------------------------------- you still won't get it....

 

[mamooth]

then the solar oven would be collecting that back radiation and you wouldn't see a temperature drop to below the ambient.

SSDD also flunks optics, as I have explained before.

Parabolic reflectors such as the solar oven only concentrate _parallel_ radiation, such as coming from the sun or any other distant near-point source. Send in diffuse light, like backradiation, and nothing gets concentrated over background levels. So heat out, no heat in, temperature in oven drops.

 

[PMZ]

All science has proven unequivocally is that So called greenhouse gases absorb then emit. That is a far cry from proving man-made global warming. You apparently have no idea what climate science has been saying for the past 20 years..... Or should I say since the Ice Age scare died out

GHG's absorb and emit longwave radiation in the same range as land, water, ice, and atmosphere emit. There is no alternative that's ever been theorized other than that reduces outgoing radiation and redirects it back to warm the earth. There's no other theory than the one that says the more molecules of GHGs there are in the atmosphere, the more pronounced the imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy will be. There's no other theory than the one that says under those conditions the earth will warm until energy balance is reactive.

So, there is no science that supports what you wish was true. No theory, no data, no anything.

100 to zero. You're scoreless.

Sorry but you're wrong the atmospheric thermal effect explains the temperature on Earth without a greenhouse effect. And the greenhouse effect fails to accurately predict the temperature of every other planet in the solar system with atmosphere

Show us some evidence. Some data. Some credible science source that agrees with you. Something that's more than what you wish was true.

 

[flacaltenn]

then the solar oven would be collecting that back radiation and you wouldn't see a temperature drop to below the ambient.

SSDD also flunks optics, as I have explained before.

Parabolic reflectors such as the solar oven only concentrate _parallel_ radiation, such as coming from the sun or any other distant near-point source. Send in diffuse light, like backradiation, and nothing gets concentrated over background levels. So heat out, no heat in, temperature in oven drops.

Don't need to invoke parallel propagation.. The distances involved make a large percentage of incident radiation appear to be parallel given the small diameter of the dish. It really is because you wouldn't expect the temp to exceed ambient. The temperature of the radiation layer is that much colder than the ground. It is the only thing standing between you and near absolute zero. AND --- the net flow of energy is highly skyward.

In optics, you wouldn't see a diffraction grating pattern with a truly diffused source. But the diffuse light from a streetlamp a couple 100 yards away is "parallel enough" (because of the small angle of admittance) to make one thru the screen on your window at night.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm probably wrong in the post above to pounce on Mamooth's observation about the "gain" of the parabolic collector.. It probably does suck at collecting diffuse IR and offers very little "concentration" of the down-dwelling energy.

Sorry for the rare lack of clarity..

But like I said -- the sky is colder than the ground. So expecting to "concentrate it" and cook an egg with it -- is a non-starter.. As is expecting it to be anywhere near surface ambient.

 

[SSDD]

But like I said -- the sky is colder than the ground. So expecting to "concentrate it" and cook an egg with it -- is a non-starter.. As is expecting it to be anywhere near surface ambient.

No one said anyting about cooking an egg, but if there were backradiation coming back to the surface of the earth sufficient to warm it, don't you think the temperature would at least remain equal to the ambient?

 

[SSDD]

The warming of the surface DOES NOT COME from back radiation.. It comes from the fact that the sun pumps approx the SAME AMOUNT of energy into a system that has had it's "cooling rate" reduced.. It's the radiative physics analogy to adding insulation, but not turning down the input energy..

Climate science says additional warming of the surface, above and beyond what the sun can provide comes from backradiation.

 

[IanC]

I'm probably wrong in the post above to pounce on Mamooth's observation about the "gain" of the parabolic collector.. It probably does suck at collecting diffuse IR and offers very little "concentration" of the down-dwelling energy.

Sorry for the rare lack of clarity..

But like I said -- the sky is colder than the ground. So expecting to "concentrate it" and cook an egg with it -- is a non-starter.. As is expecting it to be anywhere near surface ambient.

I havent perused this thread before. its off topic as most are


I would like to point out and thank flac for reconsidering his original thought rather than doggedly stick to his guns like so many posters do here. I think it is a sign of intellect to continue to refine your opinion on a subject.

 

[IanC]

The warming of the surface DOES NOT COME from back radiation.. It comes from the fact that the sun pumps approx the SAME AMOUNT of energy into a system that has had it's "cooling rate" reduced.. It's the radiative physics analogy to adding insulation, but not turning down the input energy..

Climate science says additional warming of the surface, above and beyond what the sun can provide comes from backradiation.

dozens of pages have been written here on this exact question.

over and over again you have been told that there are two major ways to affect surface equilibrium temperature. either change the input, or change the output. CO2 reduces the surface's ability to shed energy therefore it (indirectly) warms the surface.

you may be too stupid or too pig headed to understand this but you have certainly had it explained to you on many occasions.

 

[SSDD]

dozens of pages have been written here on this exact question.

over and over again you have been told that there are two major ways to affect surface equilibrium temperature. either change the input, or change the output. CO2 reduces the surface's ability to shed energy therefore it (indirectly) warms the surface.

You say lots of things ian. You say them as if they were the truth. Most often, they aren't and very often you say them out of ignorance. According to climate science, backradiation DIRECTLY warms the surface. I understand that you, and many warmists have your own hypothesis because somewhere inside, you understand as well as I do that the greenhouse effect claimed by climate science is a big old crock of shit. Your hypothesis about slowing warming is not, however, the official stance of climate science.

Here, from the IPCC...(and don't bother trying to claim that the IPCC is not the official mouthpiece of climate science)

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.

That is the official claim of what, and how the greenhouse effect works. Absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and RERADIATED BACK TO EARTH. Which part of that are you confused about?

We both know it is a crock of shit and you have opted for an alternative, unofficial hypothesis that suits your leanings better. As I have said, you believe in the magic, but just don't think it is as powerful. You don't believe the magic can reradiate energy back to earth, but you do believe the magic can slow radiation headed out to space.

you may be too stupid or too pig headed to understand this but you have certainly had it explained to you on many occasions.

You appear to be the stupid one here IAN. I am working directly from what the mouthpiece of modern climate science says regarding the greenhouse effect. Your personal choice of alternative hypothesis isn't any more impressive and it doesn't have the official backing of climate science.

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, you say a lot of things and speak them as if they were true. In most cases they aren't. Your "explanations" aren't.

Your "explanations" are your personal opinions and are not verified by anything more than your own arrogance.

Regardless of your "explanations" the official stance of climate science is that backradiation returns to the surface of the earth and is added to the incoming solar radiation from the sun. You speak of your hypothesis as if the science were settled there as well. Settled science...what a laugh...especially when there are so many conflicts among the various sects of the cult regarding how the magic works.

 

[flacaltenn]

But like I said -- the sky is colder than the ground. So expecting to "concentrate it" and cook an egg with it -- is a non-starter.. As is expecting it to be anywhere near surface ambient.

No one said anyting about cooking an egg, but if there were backradiation coming back to the surface of the earth sufficient to warm it, don't you think the temperature would at least remain equal to the ambient?

Of course not. The "gain" of the mirror is naturally pretty low. Guess it's about 2 to 4 times the energy density coming at it. And as Mamooth pointed out -- it has MUCH less than theoretical gain because of the non-parallel nature of the source.

And the "coolness" of the sky won't provide anywhere NEAR enough W/m2 to reach ambient. The sun supplies 1365W/m2 (about 800W at the ground) during the day. The down-dwelling IR is about 25% of that.. So the heat you get out of that cooker during the day is about 4 X 2 or 4 X 4 HIGHER during the day..

The EM coming back down isnt raising temperature anywhere. It's reducing the thermal path flux of what's lost going up to space..

 

[flacaltenn]

dozens of pages have been written here on this exact question.

over and over again you have been told that there are two major ways to affect surface equilibrium temperature. either change the input, or change the output. CO2 reduces the surface's ability to shed energy therefore it (indirectly) warms the surface.

You say lots of things ian. You say them as if they were the truth. Most often, they aren't and very often you say them out of ignorance. According to climate science, backradiation DIRECTLY warms the surface. I understand that you, and many warmists have your own hypothesis because somewhere inside, you understand as well as I do that the greenhouse effect claimed by climate science is a big old crock of shit. Your hypothesis about slowing warming is not, however, the official stance of climate science.

Here, from the IPCC...(and don't bother trying to claim that the IPCC is not the official mouthpiece of climate science)

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..

That is the official claim of what, and how the greenhouse effect works. Absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and RERADIATED BACK TO EARTH. Which part of that are you confused about?

We both know it is a crock of shit and you have opted for an alternative, unofficial hypothesis that suits your leanings better. As I have said, you believe in the magic, but just don't think it is as powerful. You don't believe the magic can reradiate energy back to earth, but you do believe the magic can slow radiation headed out to space.

you may be too stupid or too pig headed to understand this but you have certainly had it explained to you on many occasions.

You appear to be the stupid one here IAN. I am working directly from what the mouthpiece of modern climate science says regarding the greenhouse effect. Your personal choice of alternative hypothesis isn't any more impressive and it doesn't have the official backing of climate science.

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, you say a lot of things and speak them as if they were true. In most cases they aren't. Your "explanations" aren't.

Your "explanations" are your personal opinions and are not verified by anything more than your own arrogance.

Regardless of your "explanations" the official stance of climate science is that backradiation returns to the surface of the earth and is added to the incoming solar radiation from the sun. You speak of your hypothesis as if the science were settled there as well. Settled science...what a laugh...especially when there are so many conflicts among the various sects of the cult regarding how the magic works.

It IS re-radiated back to earth.. That IPCC quote makes NO CLAIM that it reverses the net thermal exchange and starts to HEAT the surface.. If the net exchange at the surface is UP --- there is no heating of the surface -- there is cooling..

In EMagnetic propagation, you can absorb LESS then you are emitting.. That's what the surface is doing.. It is ABSORBING the down radiation -- but EMITTING MORE in the direction of the sky.. So under those conditions --- no temperature increase results at the surface from that exchange. Deep space just gets LESS than ALL the emitted radiation.

THAT'S the GreenHouse effect..

Good thinking about the IPCC lying about that --- rare occasion where they didn't stretch the truth.. But I AM AMAZED that anything that elementary has to appear in the Worlds Premiere Compendium of Knowledge on Climate Change.

 

[SSDD]

It IS re-radiated back to earth.. That IPCC quote makes NO CLAIM that it reverses the net thermal exchange and starts to HEAT the surface.. If the net exchange at the surface is UP --- there is no heating of the surface -- there is cooling..

As with so many other things, in this you simply assume that you know. Have you even read what climate science via the IPCC has to say regarding the greenhouse effect?

Here, let me pick up from where I cut the last cut and paste off:

The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet.

Can I make it more clear for you? Climate science claims that backradiation actually heats the surface of the earth to a greater degree than the sun is able to. As you can see, if you will pull your head out of your ass for just a minute, that they do indeed claim that it reverses the net thermal exchange (as if such silliness were possible) and DOES heat the surface.

Like I told Ian, I am aware that you guys have your own hypothesis, but it isn't the one that climate science is promoting. Most luke warmers don't buy the greenhouse effect as described by climate science for obvious reasons, but your own hypotheses are just as weak.

In EMagnetic propagation, you can absorb LESS then you are emitting.. That's what the surface is doing.. It is ABSORBING the down radiation -- but EMITTING MORE in the direction of the sky.. So under those conditions --- no temperature increase results at the surface from that exchange. Deep space just gets LESS than ALL the emitted radiation.

There is no down radiation except in rare instances where the atmosphere is actually warmer than the surface...aside from that, your version of what is happening clearly is at odds with what climate science is claiming....they are stating in clear language that the surface of the earth is being warmed by backradiation to a temperature higher than the sun alone could provide.

In THAT'S the GreenHouse effect..

As I have always said, there is no greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science. Now that you have seen that they are stating in no uncertain terms that backradiation is heating the surface of the planet, do you agree with me?

In Good thinking about the IPCC lying about that --- rare occasion where they didn't stretch the truth.. But I AM AMAZED that anything that elementary has to appear in the Worlds Premiere Compendium of Knowledge on Climate Change.

Seeing that they are in fact claiming that backradiation is warming the surface of the planet, do you still think that they are the world's premiere compendium of knowledge on climate change?

 

[flacaltenn]

It IS re-radiated back to earth.. That IPCC quote makes NO CLAIM that it reverses the net thermal exchange and starts to HEAT the surface.. If the net exchange at the surface is UP --- there is no heating of the surface -- there is cooling..

As with so many other things, in this you simply assume that you know. Have you even read what climate science via the IPCC has to say regarding the greenhouse effect?

Here, let me pick up from where I cut the last cut and paste off:

The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet.

Can I make it more clear for you? Climate science claims that backradiation actually heats the surface of the earth to a greater degree than the sun is able to. As you can see, if you will pull your head out of your ass for just a minute, that they do indeed claim that it reverses the net thermal exchange (as if such silliness were possible) and DOES heat the surface.

Like I told Ian, I am aware that you guys have your own hypothesis, but it isn't the one that climate science is promoting. Most luke warmers don't buy the greenhouse effect as described by climate science for obvious reasons, but your own hypotheses are just as weak.



There is no down radiation except in rare instances where the atmosphere is actually warmer than the surface...aside from that, your version of what is happening clearly is at odds with what climate science is claiming....they are stating in clear language that the surface of the earth is being warmed by backradiation to a temperature higher than the sun alone could provide.

In THAT'S the GreenHouse effect..

As I have always said, there is no greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science. Now that you have seen that they are stating in no uncertain terms that backradiation is heating the surface of the planet, do you agree with me?

In Good thinking about the IPCC lying about that --- rare occasion where they didn't stretch the truth.. But I AM AMAZED that anything that elementary has to appear in the Worlds Premiere Compendium of Knowledge on Climate Change.

Seeing that they are in fact claiming that backradiation is warming the surface of the planet, do you still think that they are the world's premiere compendium of knowledge on climate change?

Well now -- THAT'S the poorly done Sesame Street story that I EXPECT from the IPCC...


We agree that ALL of the public theatre that comes out off the altar of Climate Science is playing loose and fast with the facts.. The problem here with all that constant simplification is that it's not written for science. It's at the 4th grade level to be consistent with the understanding level of your typical political policy wonk or Senator..

The GreenHouse effect DOES warm the surface. But it's not from the down radiation. It comes from a surplus of INCOMING primary energy from the Sun that can't be shed as quickly because of a lower outgoing cooling.

I think we can agree to not take literally any science summary from the IPCC, but as educated folks with some science chops -- we should still understand where to attack the crap that passes as "settled science".. And assaulting the basic workings of Atmos Physics is NOT gonna be productive..

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You all are missing the point of the story. They must have invented a Time Machine so they could go back to 2012 witness all of the people die horrible deaths from AGW.

Are we dead yet?

 

[SSDD]

Well now -- THAT'S the poorly done Sesame Street story that I EXPECT from the IPCC...

The ipcc is the mouthpiece for climate science. No warmist has come out to contradict the statement that backradiation actually warms the surface. The fact is that that is the actual greenhouse effect hypothesis and you just admitted that it belongs on sesame street. Your own hypothesis comes from where? Certainly not main stream climate science.

In The GreenHouse effect DOES warm the surface. But it's not from the down radiation. It comes from a surplus of INCOMING primary energy from the Sun that can't be shed as quickly because of a lower outgoing cooling.

There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science. There is, however, observable, repeatable evidence that an atmospheric thermal effect, predicted and supported by the laws of physics does exist and can explain the temperature here on earth.

In I think we can agree to not take literally any science summary from the IPCC,

I don't think we can agree to that at all. The ipcc is the public mouthpiece for mainstream climate science. I understand that you would want to put them as far away from the mainstream as you can get them because your hypothesis doesn't mesh with yours, but the fact is that mainstream climate science has not stepped up to refute the claim that backradiation actually warms the surface of the planet above and beyond what the sun can manage.

 

[PMZ]

Well now -- THAT'S the poorly done Sesame Street story that I EXPECT from the IPCC...

The ipcc is the mouthpiece for climate science. No warmist has come out to contradict the statement that backradiation actually warms the surface. The fact is that that is the actual greenhouse effect hypothesis and you just admitted that it belongs on sesame street. Your own hypothesis comes from where? Certainly not main stream climate science.

In The GreenHouse effect DOES warm the surface. But it's not from the down radiation. It comes from a surplus of INCOMING primary energy from the Sun that can't be shed as quickly because of a lower outgoing cooling.

There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science. There is, however, observable, repeatable evidence that an atmospheric thermal effect, predicted and supported by the laws of physics does exist and can explain the temperature here on earth.

In I think we can agree to not take literally any science summary from the IPCC,

I don't think we can agree to that at all. The ipcc is the public mouthpiece for mainstream climate science. I understand that you would want to put them as far away from the mainstream as you can get them because your hypothesis doesn't mesh with yours, but the fact is that mainstream climate science has not stepped up to refute the claim that backradiation actually warms the surface of the planet above and beyond what the sun can manage.

One thing mainstream science can agree on is that you have no idea what you are talking about.

There is no possible alternative to back radiation proportional to GHG concentration in the atmosphere. That's the very definition of GHG and the properties that make them that are easily measured and confirmed.

The IPCC was commissioned to be the science input to the politics of defining the consequences of various paths forward addressing the problems that we created for ourselves harnessing the sun's energy from 10s of millions of years ago to create the energy that we need.

They are the science. You are the politics. Their science conflicts with your politics.

Too bad but your discomfort doesn't change their science.

 

[PMZ]

You all are missing the point of the story. They must have invented a Time Machine so they could go back to 2012 witness all of the people die horrible deaths from AGW.

Are we dead yet?

Who cares what some undefined 'they' said about anything, ever.