Sea level rise, 2019

[CrusaderFrank]

Stefan-Boltzmann equation will give the Earth's blackbody temperature ... I haven't personally measured the solar constant, but this information is widely available in any scientific reference manual ... we plug in all these into SB and the answer is 277 K ... 4ºC ... and there's a couple of different ways to verify this result ...

What we actually measure is closer to 290 K ... 16ºC ...

I consider this as empirical evidence ... SSDD doesn't ... all I can say is show me your math and point out where my error is ...

Odd that no one ever posted a single repeatable Experiment showing how increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm raises temperature

 

[SSDD]

Stefan-Boltzmann equation will give the Earth's blackbody temperature ... I haven't personally measured the solar constant, but this information is widely available in any scientific reference manual ... we plug in all these into SB and the answer is 277 K ... 4ºC ... and there's a couple of different ways to verify this result ...

What we actually measure is closer to 290 K ... 16ºC ...

I consider this as empirical evidence ... SSDD doesn't ... all I can say is show me your math and point out where my error is ...

That is evidence that the earth is warmer during the night and cooler during the day than it would be if it didn’t have an atmosphere....it doesn’t even begin to be evidence of a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...that is on par with pointing to melting glaciers and assuming that mankind is to blame...if you think that is empirical evidence of a radiative greenhouse effect, then clearly you are easily fooled...

 

[ReinyDays]

That is evidence that the earth is warmer during the night and cooler during the day than it would be if it didn’t have an atmosphere....it doesn’t even begin to be evidence of a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...that is on par with pointing to melting glaciers and assuming that mankind is to blame...if you think that is empirical evidence of a radiative greenhouse effect, then clearly you are easily fooled...

Warmer during the day ... whoever told you different fooled you ...

Then what is this evidence of? ... that's the ignorance of your position, you won't even try to say what does cause this ... in science, you are obligated to disprove things as well ...

 

[SSDD]

That is evidence that the earth is warmer during the night and cooler during the day than it would be if it didn’t have an atmosphere....it doesn’t even begin to be evidence of a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...that is on par with pointing to melting glaciers and assuming that mankind is to blame...if you think that is empirical evidence of a radiative greenhouse effect, then clearly you are easily fooled...

Warmer during the day ... whoever told you different fooled you ...

Earth and the moon get essentially the same amount of solar energy...during the day, the temperature of the moon is about 260 F...the night side of the moon is about -280 F.

If the earth was a rock with no atmosphere, then it would be about the same burning temperature as on the moon during the day and would rapidly cool off to about the same temperature as the moon at night.

Who ever told you that our atmosphere makes it warmer during the day than we would be if we had no atmosphere fooled you quite badly...I mean, the moon is right there to prove them wrong...

Then what is this evidence of? ... that's the ignorance of your position, you won't even try to say what does cause this ... in science, you are obligated to disprove things as well ...

As I said...it is evidence that we are cooler during the day and warmer during the night than we would be without an atmosphere...the moon provides clear evidence of that fact.

Have you ever considered the fact, or are you even aware of the fact that the math describing the greenhouse effect only works here on earth, and only then because of an ad hoc fudge factor? That math doesn't even get close to predicting the temperature of any other planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere. Does that not tell you anything at all? Is some magic at work that makes the math applicable here, but unworkable anywhere else. What unique set of physics is at work here that is absent in the rest of our solar system?

The ideal gas laws plus solar insolation not only come very close to accurately predicting the temperature here, but also come very close to predicting the temperature of every other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere. Any hypothesis that more closely predicts reality over a wide range of conditions, and is supported by physical laws, is clearly better, and closer to reality than a hypothesis which can only predict reality in one place and then only if allowed an ad hoc fudge factor and is supported by no physical law.

Just for example, the greenhouse hypothesis predicts that for every doubling of CO2, the temperature will rise somewhere between .2 degrees and 8 degrees...(steadily trending towards zero by the way). ...but just for fun, lets say 3 degrees....Now suppose we undergo 18 doublings of CO2....18 doublings at 3 degrees per doubling will give us a temperature increase of 54 degrees. How does that compare with the reality of Venus? It would require 18 doublings for us to reach the same CO2 levels...even after you adjust for the difference in incoming solar radiation, it doesn't even get close.

The ideal gas laws, and adjustments for incoming solar radiation are nearly spot on...that should give you pause...but you hold a belief, and facts don't hold much sway against belief.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Looks like we may be in for some surprises;

If you fill a glass with ice and water and set it on a level surface and leave it there will the glass flood the level surface?