Red Flag Anyone?

[signelect]

If the board was every together in one room it would be very interesting if some of the BA typers would in fact be so brave. I seriously doubt it.

 

[wirebender]

If the board was every together in one room it would be very interesting if some of the BA typers would in fact be so brave. I seriously doubt it.

Elaborate

 

[ScienceRocks]

I will admit that Wirebender is very intelligent and has tied co2 to the laws of thermodynamics that are solid. HEAT CAN"T flow from colder to HOTTER and energy can't be made out of nothing. More discussion needs to be had on how it gets around it. The warmer side needs to post journal papers that are peer reviewed as wirebender wishes to be proven wrong. Show how it gets around the LAW of Physics as it should be easy as over 97 percent of scientist appear to be supportive of the theory of global warming...You'll think that there would be solid Physics all over the fucking internet to be posted showing to a T how it works, BUT IN all honesty there is still something causing the warming and it is only human to went to find out what it is. What is "z"? Surely not the sun.

We as humans are trying to figure out how things work...That is good!

There is still that nasty variable that is causing the warming. I will keep track of it too. But we shouldn't be having this back and forth discussion if the science of global warming was so solid. Hell the warmers should be beating the dead horse every time this question come up(A FUCKING TURKEY SHOOT. That's how many papers, peer review papers and blog post that should be out there discussing this topic to post at the skeptics.

Look, I know it's warming and the ice is melting, but we really shouldn't have to defend our case on the defensive every time some one like wirebender comes onto this forum. We must be damn fucking sure we have the science down in a easy to understand way that people can understand! If wirebender is wrong then his science should easily be shown to be WRONG! Hell we warmers should have stuff ready that can utterly destroy people like wirebenders case to the point that even someone that knows very little will agree with us. The basics should honestly be down pat!

WHAT THE FUCK HAVE WE BEEN DOING?

 

[IanC]

I will admit that Wirebender is very intelligent and has tied co2 to the laws of thermodynamics that are solid. HEAT CAN"T flow from colder to HOTTER and energy can't be made out of nothing. More discussion needs to be had on how it gets around it. The warmer side needs to post journal papers that are peer reviewed as wirebender wishes to be proven wrong. Show how it gets around the LAW of Physics as it should be easy as over 97 percent of scientist appear to be supportive of the theory of global warming...You'll think that there would be solid Physics all over the fucking internet to be posted showing to a T how it works, BUT IN all honesty there is still something causing the warming and it is only human to went to find out what it is. What is "z"? Surely not the sun.

We as humans are trying to figure out how things work...That is good!

There is still that nasty variable that is causing the warming. I will keep track of it too. But we shouldn't be having this back and forth discussion if the science of global warming was so solid. Hell the warmers should be beating the dead horse every time this question come up(A FUCKING TURKEY SHOOT. That's how many papers, peer review papers and blog post that should be out there discussing this topic to post at the skeptics.

Look, I know it's warming and the ice is melting, but we really shouldn't have to defend our case on the defensive every time some one like wirebender comes onto this forum. We must be damn fucking sure we have the science down in a easy to understand way that people can understand! If wirebender is wrong then his science should easily be shown to be WRONG! Hell we warmers should have stuff ready that can utterly destroy people like wirebenders case to the point that even someone that knows very little will agree with us. The basics should honestly be down pat!

WHAT THE FUCK HAVE WE BEEN DOING?

I hear ya Matt! there should be much more basic physics examples available. and intermediate and advanced. someone like wirebender has a lot of the stuff right but trips up along the way with over or under simplification. or emphasising certain effects over others. or getting the magnitudes of effects confused. hey, I'm sure I do too. eg what is the size of IR reflection off water droplets compared to the scattering effect of CO2? how much energy is carried aloft as latent heat compared to direct IR transportation? do wirebender's magical EM fields really make it impossible for a CO2 molecule to emit a photon earthward or are we just measuring the preponderance of radiation going in a certain direction? it is hard enough to try and get a grip on things with idealized natural laws but next to impossible when you start adding in abidadic rates and earth rotaion and greybody radiation,etc.

 

[Trakar]

I will admit that Wirebender is very intelligent and has tied co2 to the laws of thermodynamics that are solid. HEAT CAN"T flow from colder to HOTTER and energy can't be made out of nothing. More discussion needs to be had on how it gets around it. The warmer side needs to post journal papers that are peer reviewed as wirebender wishes to be proven wrong. Show how it gets around the LAW of Physics as it should be easy as over 97 percent of scientist appear to be supportive of the theory of global warming...You'll think that there would be solid Physics all over the fucking internet to be posted showing to a T how it works, BUT IN all honesty there is still something causing the warming and it is only human to went to find out what it is. What is "z"? Surely not the sun.

We as humans are trying to figure out how things work...That is good!

There is still that nasty variable that is causing the warming. I will keep track of it too. But we shouldn't be having this back and forth discussion if the science of global warming was so solid. Hell the warmers should be beating the dead horse every time this question come up(A FUCKING TURKEY SHOOT. That's how many papers, peer review papers and blog post that should be out there discussing this topic to post at the skeptics.

Look, I know it's warming and the ice is melting, but we really shouldn't have to defend our case on the defensive every time some one like wirebender comes onto this forum. We must be damn fucking sure we have the science down in a easy to understand way that people can understand! If wirebender is wrong then his science should easily be shown to be WRONG! Hell we warmers should have stuff ready that can utterly destroy people like wirebenders case to the point that even someone that knows very little will agree with us. The basics should honestly be down pat!

WHAT THE FUCK HAVE WE BEEN DOING?

Wirebender has had the fallacies of his twisted understandings exposed and patiently explained to him many times along with long involved personal explanations and discussions explaining the science and precisely where his distortions deviate from reality. Unfortunately, within a matter of weeks (occassionally days) he begins repeating the same previous mistakes as though the earlier discussions had never occurred.

Personally, I don't have much time to spend on this board, and I certainly don't want to spend that time repeating the same discussion over and over again.

For those who are interested the basic facts and evidences

CO2 - physics of the greenhouse effect

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The Greenhouse Effect

Teachers' Domain: Global Warming: Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect

And here's one rather surprizingly good explanation from a source that I typically spend more time correcting that agreeing with in the area of climate discussions, Richard Lindzen

"Greenhouse Effect: A scientific analysis"
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/198_greenhouse.pdf

 

[wirebender]

Wirebender has had the fallacies of his twisted understandings exposed and patiently explained to him many times along with long involved personal explanations and discussions explaining the science and precisely where his distortions deviate from reality. Unfortunately, within a matter of weeks (occassionally days) he begins repeating the same previous mistakes as though the earlier discussions had never occurred.

I am laughing in your face RWatt. You did the math yourself and refused to accept the conclusion you came to yourself. When your faith trumps the math you did yourself, then you have well and truely drunk the Koolaid.

 

[wirebender]

do wirebender's magical EM fields really make it impossible for a CO2 molecule to emit a photon earthward or are we just measuring the preponderance of radiation going in a certain direction?

Nothing magical Ian. I did the math and to date, you have not pointed out any error on my part or named any physical law that I have misapplied.

As to what we are measuring when we point instruments into the sky that have not been artificially cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere; well it isn't that complicated. The instrument used to supposedly measure downdwelling longwave radiation is called a pyrgeometer and according to wikipedia, this is how it works:

The atmosphere and the pyrgeometer (in effect the earth surface) exchange long wave IR radiation. This results in a net radiation balance according to:

Where:
Enet - net radiation at sensor surface [W/m²]
Ein - Long-wave radiation received from the atmosphere [W/m²]
Eout - Long-wave radiation emitted by the earth surface [W/m²]

The pyrgeometer's thermopile detects the net radiation balance between the incoming and outgoing long wave radiation flux and converts it to a voltage according to the equation below.

Where:
Enet - net radiation at sensor surface [W/m²]
Uemf - thermopile output voltage [V]
S - sensitivity/calibration factor of instrument [V/W/m²]

The value for S is determined during calibration of the instrument. The calibration is performed at the production factory with a reference instrument traceable to a regional calibration center.[1]

To derive the absolute downward long wave flux, the temperature of the pyrgeometer has to be taken into account. It is measured using a temperature sensor inside the instrument, near the cold junctions of the thermopile. The pyrgeometer is considered to approximate a black body. Due to this it emits long wave radiation according to:

Where:
Eout - Long-wave radiation emitted by the earth surface [W/m²]
σ - Stefan-Boltzmann constant [W/(m²·K4)]
T - Absolute temperature of pyrgeometer detector [kelvins]

From the calculations above the incoming long wave radiation can be derived. This is usually done by rearranging the equations above to yield the so called pyrgeometer equation by Albrecht and Cox.

Where all the variables have the same meaning as before.

As a result, the detected voltage and instrument temperature yield the total global long wave downward radiation.

So that, in a nutshell is how the instrument is claimed to work. But is it measuring downdwelling LW radiation and thus proving that there is an energy transfer in the form of energy from the atmosphere down to the earth? The short answer is no.

The instrument in question measures a net transfer and then fabricates downdwelling LW radiation using the Stefan Boltzman equation for a blackbody radiating into a void at zero degrees K.

The instrument isn't actually measuring downdwelling radiation. It is inventing it via this equation: E in = E net + E out which supposedly is the result of E net = E in - E out which expresses a variation of the Stefan Boltzman law in the form E net = sigma Ta^4 - sigma Te^4 .

Te and Ta are supposedly the temperatures of the atmosphere and the surface of the earth. This, however, is not how Stefan Boltzman's law is described in the physics texts. Grab yourself a Book-O-Physics and you will find the Stefan Boltzman law expressed as
E net = sigma (Ta^4 - Te^4) and you can not derive downdwelling LW radiation as sigma Ta^4.

Measurements of downdwelling LW radiation by these instruments is a fabrication resulting from an improvised formula that has no basis in physical reality. No such derivation of the Stefan Boltzman law is discussed in the physics literature. In short, anyone who drops nearly $6,000 on one of these expecting to measure downdwelling LW radiation may as well spend the money on magic beans for all the good the instrument will do them in measuring DLR that does not exist in the first place.

 

[yidnar]

Green represents ice that was present on 09/14/2011 that was not present on 09/14/2007.
Red represents ice that was present on 09/14/2007 that was not present on 09/14/2011.

Bremen however, claims that the ice in 2007 and the ice today are essentially identical. Me thinks shenanigans most foul are afoot.

when the ice melts in a glass of ice water does the water level rise ??

Nope, but no one said sea ice would rise the sea level. On the other hand melting land ice from ice sheets or glaciers surely will. Greenland, Antarctica. This topic isn't about sea levels either... Well one way you could rise the sea level is more open ocean=more energy being absorbed=expanding oceans. Water expands when you heat it. Part of the rise in sea levels are because of the increasing temperature of the oceans.