Warmest March on record according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency

[IanC]

jc- have you ever read the discussions about Spencer's "Yes Virginia....." or Willis's shell around a sphere thought problems? it would help you understand the whole 'can cold make warm warmer' thing. if you do, and somehow end up on the slayer's side, come back and I will point out the fallacies. because cool objects can certainly make warm objects warmerif there is a power source involved.

 

[IanC]

You should probably stop.

nope, you're wrong. And you fail to answer the question. Does cold make warm warmer.? Still haven't answered, fifteen flippin pages and you beat around the question. Answer it then.

You're even dumber than SSDD.

yes I am, he's way over my head. I'm logical, and you fail logic. And, to the dummy me, you still haven't answered the question. Can we go fifteen more pages or you can simply acknowledge you have no proof?

Does cold make warm warmer.?

Of course not. Put an ice cube in your warm Coke. See for yourself.

well son, my argument is that the cooler atmosphere cannot warm the surface. I ask for proof. None is given.

again, the Sun does the work of warming the surface. I agree with you that the semantics of saying the cooler ( edit- cool not cooler, any time the atmosphere is warmer than space it causes the surface to warm) atmosphere is warming the surface is confusing. but the cooler atmosphere does cause conditions thatlead to a warmer surface.

 

[jc456]

nope, you're wrong. And you fail to answer the question. Does cold make warm warmer.? Still haven't answered, fifteen flippin pages and you beat around the question. Answer it then.

You're even dumber than SSDD.

yes I am, he's way over my head. I'm logical, and you fail logic. And, to the dummy me, you still haven't answered the question. Can we go fifteen more pages or you can simply acknowledge you have no proof?

Does cold make warm warmer.?

Of course not. Put an ice cube in your warm Coke. See for yourself.

well son, my argument is that the cooler atmosphere cannot warm the surface. I ask for proof. None is given.

again, the Sun does the work of warming the surface. I agree with you that the semantics of saying the cooler atmosphere is warming the surface is confusing. but the cooler atmosphere does cause conditions thatlead to a warmer surface.

And I have never argued against that. I merely argue that it isn't CO2 that has anything to do with anything.

 

[jc456]

jc- have you ever read the discussions about Spencer's "Yes Virginia....." or Willis's shell around a sphere thought problems? it would help you understand the whole 'can cold make warm warmer' thing. if you do, and somehow end up on the slayer's side, come back and I will point out the fallacies. because cool objects can certainly make warm objects warmerif there is a power source involved.

No, but, cold can't make warm warmer. Impossible. Shell, sphere, I don't care, cold cannot induce heat.

 

[Wuwei]

Apply the lorentz relativity equation to a photon from any point in the universe to any other point in the universe.

Did you ever try to apply the Lorentz transformation to a photon? Mathematically? Try it. The Lorentz equation blows up to infinity. You are way off base if you think you can do anything meaningful with a reference frame transformation to the speed of light. That shoots your whole (non)argument.

I can't help but notice that you haven't described the difference between zero distance and zero time between bodies and physical contact.

That's because you have never asked. You are confusing me with Todd.
You have never told me if you did the math of the Lorentz transformation. If you did, was there a division by zero?
But I will bite. Suppose zero distance means contact. Of course the Lorentz transformation blow up still means that what you think about the photon contact is meaningless.

 

[IanC]

jc- have you ever read the discussions about Spencer's "Yes Virginia....." or Willis's shell around a sphere thought problems? it would help you understand the whole 'can cold make warm warmer' thing. if you do, and somehow end up on the slayer's side, come back and I will point out the fallacies. because cool objects can certainly make warm objects warmerif there is a power source involved.

No, but, cold can't make warm warmer. Impossible. Shell, sphere, I don't care, cold cannot induce heat.

okay, I'll try from another direction.

you are concerned about where the energy comes from that heats the surface, right? it comes from the energy that does not go into space.

consider a stereo amp. now throw a towel over it. come back half an hour later and the amp is much hotter than it was before. did the towel warm it? not directly with its own energy. it interfered with the energy loss of the amp. how does the same power input now sustain a much higher temperature even though the amp (at equilibrium) is losing the same amount of energy as the much warmer amp +towel at equilibrium? where did the energy come from? again,it was the energy not lost to the room after the towel was thrown over the amp and up until the time equilibrium at the higher temperature was achieved.

 

[Wuwei]

That is not true. You have one critical word wrong. This is a rewording, more consistent to what was written long ago.:

"...the second law is about heat movement and it (heat energy) doesn't flow uphill unless you do some work to make it happen."

I hope that clears up your confusion.

Is heat a form of energy, or is heat evidence of another form of energy moving from one place to another?

The meaning of the term "heat" would come from the context that you used, the old form of the SLoT,
Clausius in the 1850's:
"Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time."
Notice he uses the word "heat" and not "energy".

 

[Wuwei]

Nothing will clear up his confusion on that issue. It would cause his worldview to collapse.

Well, his worldview is collapsed. Either he doesn't realize that or he does at some level and just likes to take a stance for the sake of cantankerous rhetoric.

Sounding more like toddster every post.

It may appear that way, but I don't believe everything that Todd seems to believe. I simply think you are confused about physics.

 

[jc456]

jc- have you ever read the discussions about Spencer's "Yes Virginia....." or Willis's shell around a sphere thought problems? it would help you understand the whole 'can cold make warm warmer' thing. if you do, and somehow end up on the slayer's side, come back and I will point out the fallacies. because cool objects can certainly make warm objects warmerif there is a power source involved.

No, but, cold can't make warm warmer. Impossible. Shell, sphere, I don't care, cold cannot induce heat.

okay, I'll try from another direction.

you are concerned about where the energy comes from that heats the surface, right? it comes from the energy that does not go into space.

consider a stereo amp. now throw a towel over it. come back half an hour later and the amp is much hotter than it was before. did the towel warm it? not directly with its own energy. it interfered with the energy loss of the amp. how does the same power input now sustain a much higher temperature even though the amp (at equilibrium) is losing the same amount of energy as the much warmer amp +towel at equilibrium? where did the energy come from? again,it was the energy not lost to the room after the towel was thrown over the amp and up until the time equilibrium at the higher temperature was achieved.

not to be a smartass, but what if that towel was ice, would it still get as hot? Get a guy on fire and throw a towel over him he goes out. There are many games that can be played. The fact is there is no evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will add heat. Do you supposed the thickness of the towel matters, sure it does. It's fabric and is heavy and dense. We know that as CO2 rises, it becomes lighter. It's the only way it can get into the atmosphere.

 

[Wuwei]

jc- have you ever read the discussions about Spencer's "Yes Virginia....." or Willis's shell around a sphere thought problems? it would help you understand the whole 'can cold make warm warmer' thing. if you do, and somehow end up on the slayer's side, come back and I will point out the fallacies. because cool objects can certainly make warm objects warmerif there is a power source involved.

No, but, cold can't make warm warmer. Impossible. Shell, sphere, I don't care, cold cannot induce heat.

okay, I'll try from another direction.

you are concerned about where the energy comes from that heats the surface, right? it comes from the energy that does not go into space.

consider a stereo amp. now throw a towel over it. come back half an hour later and the amp is much hotter than it was before. did the towel warm it? not directly with its own energy. it interfered with the energy loss of the amp. how does the same power input now sustain a much higher temperature even though the amp (at equilibrium) is losing the same amount of energy as the much warmer amp +towel at equilibrium? where did the energy come from? again,it was the energy not lost to the room after the towel was thrown over the amp and up until the time equilibrium at the higher temperature was achieved.

not to be a smartass, but what if that towel was ice, would it still get as hot? Get a guy on fire and throw a towel over him he goes out. There are many games that can be played. The fact is there is no evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will add heat. Do you supposed the thickness of the towel matters, sure it does. It's fabric and is heavy and dense. We know that as CO2 rises, it becomes lighter. It's the only way it can get into the atmosphere.

The concept of CO2 as a GHG is difficult to put in a few lines on a forum. The easiest to understand explanation I have found is at the site:
Simple Models of Climate
There is a lot of history there. Skip down about 10% of the way to the paragraph that starts out, "Not until the mid-20th century would scientists fully grasp, and calculate with some precision, just how the effect works."
However the link I gave you should land you there anyway.

 

[Wuwei]

My source is the Lorentz relativity equations....feel free to apply them to a photon moving at the speed of light and see if you get an answer other than zero distance and zero time to anywhere.

You should really try it yourself first before asking some else to do it. You will find a division by zero.

 

[IanC]

jc- have you ever read the discussions about Spencer's "Yes Virginia....." or Willis's shell around a sphere thought problems? it would help you understand the whole 'can cold make warm warmer' thing. if you do, and somehow end up on the slayer's side, come back and I will point out the fallacies. because cool objects can certainly make warm objects warmerif there is a power source involved.

No, but, cold can't make warm warmer. Impossible. Shell, sphere, I don't care, cold cannot induce heat.

okay, I'll try from another direction.

you are concerned about where the energy comes from that heats the surface, right? it comes from the energy that does not go into space.

consider a stereo amp. now throw a towel over it. come back half an hour later and the amp is much hotter than it was before. did the towel warm it? not directly with its own energy. it interfered with the energy loss of the amp. how does the same power input now sustain a much higher temperature even though the amp (at equilibrium) is losing the same amount of energy as the much warmer amp +towel at equilibrium? where did the energy come from? again,it was the energy not lost to the room after the towel was thrown over the amp and up until the time equilibrium at the higher temperature was achieved.

not to be a smartass, but what if that towel was ice, would it still get as hot? Get a guy on fire and throw a towel over him he goes out. There are many games that can be played. The fact is there is no evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will add heat. Do you supposed the thickness of the towel matters, sure it does. It's fabric and is heavy and dense. We know that as CO2 rises, it becomes lighter. It's the only way it can get into the atmosphere.

If the amp was in a -40 freezer it would have a lower equilibrium temp than if you placed inside a box made of ice, inside the freezer.

Did the ice make the amp warmer? Semantics. The amp was warmer and the ice 'caused' it to be warmer.

 

[jc456]

jc- have you ever read the discussions about Spencer's "Yes Virginia....." or Willis's shell around a sphere thought problems? it would help you understand the whole 'can cold make warm warmer' thing. if you do, and somehow end up on the slayer's side, come back and I will point out the fallacies. because cool objects can certainly make warm objects warmerif there is a power source involved.

No, but, cold can't make warm warmer. Impossible. Shell, sphere, I don't care, cold cannot induce heat.

okay, I'll try from another direction.

you are concerned about where the energy comes from that heats the surface, right? it comes from the energy that does not go into space.

consider a stereo amp. now throw a towel over it. come back half an hour later and the amp is much hotter than it was before. did the towel warm it? not directly with its own energy. it interfered with the energy loss of the amp. how does the same power input now sustain a much higher temperature even though the amp (at equilibrium) is losing the same amount of energy as the much warmer amp +towel at equilibrium? where did the energy come from? again,it was the energy not lost to the room after the towel was thrown over the amp and up until the time equilibrium at the higher temperature was achieved.

not to be a smartass, but what if that towel was ice, would it still get as hot? Get a guy on fire and throw a towel over him he goes out. There are many games that can be played. The fact is there is no evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will add heat. Do you supposed the thickness of the towel matters, sure it does. It's fabric and is heavy and dense. We know that as CO2 rises, it becomes lighter. It's the only way it can get into the atmosphere.

The concept of CO2 as a GHG is difficult to put in a few lines on a forum. The easiest to understand explanation I have found is at the site:
Simple Models of Climate
There is a lot of history there. Skip down about 10% of the way to the paragraph that starts out, "Not until the mid-20th century would scientists fully grasp, and calculate with some precision, just how the effect works."
However the link I gave you should land you there anyway.

yes, your link was spot on to that paragraph. I read through much of this article, not all of it. In summary, I conclude there is no more known today about what happens to IR rising through the atmosphere then there was one hundred years ago. Wator vapor holds heat, it's why we have a temperature humidity index. Because humid air adds stress to our breathing making a surface temperature seem much hotter then it actually is. Not CO2. There is absolutely no evidence as to what will happen with added CO2. They state that in that article. They presume and predict, but they do not have observed.

I quote: "Thus a good part of the radiation that rises from the surface is absorbed by these gases in the middle levels of the atmosphere."

what is a good part? Why can't they put a number on it? I'll tell you why, because they don't know. Does CO2 cause warming, no. Does CO2 assist the planet stay warm, yes. How much? No one can say, or at least is offering any number. How much heat does 120 PPM of CO2 add to the surface? ummm, no number. 10 PPM of CO2, ummm no number. Why? Can you answer why a number can't be provided?

 

[Aktas]

Ice Age or Hot Age

 

[jc456]

jc- have you ever read the discussions about Spencer's "Yes Virginia....." or Willis's shell around a sphere thought problems? it would help you understand the whole 'can cold make warm warmer' thing. if you do, and somehow end up on the slayer's side, come back and I will point out the fallacies. because cool objects can certainly make warm objects warmerif there is a power source involved.

No, but, cold can't make warm warmer. Impossible. Shell, sphere, I don't care, cold cannot induce heat.

okay, I'll try from another direction.

you are concerned about where the energy comes from that heats the surface, right? it comes from the energy that does not go into space.

consider a stereo amp. now throw a towel over it. come back half an hour later and the amp is much hotter than it was before. did the towel warm it? not directly with its own energy. it interfered with the energy loss of the amp. how does the same power input now sustain a much higher temperature even though the amp (at equilibrium) is losing the same amount of energy as the much warmer amp +towel at equilibrium? where did the energy come from? again,it was the energy not lost to the room after the towel was thrown over the amp and up until the time equilibrium at the higher temperature was achieved.

not to be a smartass, but what if that towel was ice, would it still get as hot? Get a guy on fire and throw a towel over him he goes out. There are many games that can be played. The fact is there is no evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will add heat. Do you supposed the thickness of the towel matters, sure it does. It's fabric and is heavy and dense. We know that as CO2 rises, it becomes lighter. It's the only way it can get into the atmosphere.

If the amp was in a -40 freezer it would have a lower equilibrium temp than if you placed inside a box made of ice, inside the freezer.

Did the ice make the amp warmer? Semantics. The amp was warmer and the ice 'caused' it to be warmer.

I agree, poor analogy on my part. ice is not porous, so the mere mass of the ice would restrict airflow, making the amp warmer. So, you're right it would allow the amp to become warmer than not having ice on it. And yes in a -40 degree freezer it would stay cooler but still expel heat so equilibrium would be lower.

But CO2 is not a blanket, it is a gas with properties that only allow it to absorb so much heat and then saturate. Once saturated it can no longer absorb and thus any additional heat will be sent to space. So what is the amount of heat 400PPM of CO2 can hold to keep the earth warm. Me, I believe it was saturated ~ 280 PPM of CO2. So the blanket is a blanket at this point, no more thickness to the blanket can be achieved. And, again, I am not saying there is back radiation, I will agree it limits the flow through of heat into space. if it were a gas that actually warmed, then the desert wouldn't reach cold temperatures at night. I just can't logically accept that 120 PPM of CO2 added to the atmosphere adds heat. There is no evidence, nor is there an experiment to prove it.

Thanks for setting me straight.

 

[Wuwei]

yes, your link was spot on to that paragraph. I read through much of this article, not all of it. In summary, I conclude there is no more known today about what happens to IR rising through the atmosphere then there was one hundred years ago. Wator vapor holds heat, it's why we have a temperature humidity index. Because humid air adds stress to our breathing making a surface temperature seem much hotter then it actually is. Not CO2. There is absolutely no evidence as to what will happen with added CO2. They state that in that article. They presume and predict, but they do not have observed.

I quote: "Thus a good part of the radiation that rises from the surface is absorbed by these gases in the middle levels of the atmosphere."

what is a good part? Why can't they put a number on it? I'll tell you why, because they don't know. Does CO2 cause warming, no. Does CO2 assist the planet stay warm, yes. How much? No one can say, or at least is offering any number. How much heat does 120 PPM of CO2 add to the surface? ummm, no number. 10 PPM of CO2, ummm no number. Why? Can you answer why a number can't be provided?

The scope of the article was not quantitative. It simply was a qualitative explanation of the physics behind the phenomenon. It was not a treatise on AGW, and you shouldn't have tried to read that into it. If you read the whole article you would see that there were no numbers given anywhere. My major reason in pointing out the article is so that you might have more knowledge so that you could understand IANC better. The article clearly says why the TOA is so important in understanding the climate in general.

Your conclusion about the lack of new knowledge for 100 years is wrong. If you are interested in science history, go back to the beginning of the article. That gives the history.

 

[jc456]

yes, your link was spot on to that paragraph. I read through much of this article, not all of it. In summary, I conclude there is no more known today about what happens to IR rising through the atmosphere then there was one hundred years ago. Wator vapor holds heat, it's why we have a temperature humidity index. Because humid air adds stress to our breathing making a surface temperature seem much hotter then it actually is. Not CO2. There is absolutely no evidence as to what will happen with added CO2. They state that in that article. They presume and predict, but they do not have observed.

I quote: "Thus a good part of the radiation that rises from the surface is absorbed by these gases in the middle levels of the atmosphere."

what is a good part? Why can't they put a number on it? I'll tell you why, because they don't know. Does CO2 cause warming, no. Does CO2 assist the planet stay warm, yes. How much? No one can say, or at least is offering any number. How much heat does 120 PPM of CO2 add to the surface? ummm, no number. 10 PPM of CO2, ummm no number. Why? Can you answer why a number can't be provided?

The scope of the article was not quantitative. It simply was a qualitative explanation of the physics behind the phenomenon. It was not a treatise on AGW, and you shouldn't have tried to read that into it. If you read the whole article you would see that there were no numbers given anywhere. My major reason in pointing out the article is so that you might have more knowledge so that you could understand IANC better. The article clearly says why the TOA is so important in understanding the climate in general.

Your conclusion about the lack of new knowledge for 100 years is wrong. If you are interested in science history, go back to the beginning of the article. That gives the history.

I did read it, and again, there is nothing known today that wasn't known then. I read it looking for an observation. What was it, that CO2 can make water vapor? So the only water vapor is from CO2, is that what you think it's saying. I thought the oceans and other bodies of water provided water vapor? hmmmm, I missed that.

Dude, again, I trust most all of what Ian writes. he believes a little differently than me, but for the most part I believe he is in pursuit of understanding how the atmosphere works. I only care because some punk said we're all gonna die unless we stop breathing. Doh!! if I stop breathing, I ....... Therefore I ask, prove to me that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. And you know what? The answer to that is ..............................................I'm still waiting. You've provided no answer to that question. back radiation black bodies all of that crap, means nothing to me. What does is this question.... what does 120 PPM of CO2 do to temperatures? Give me a number as well. I've evolved a little for an additional request.

oh, oh, one additional thing, the thing that motivates me is when someone uses the word consensus and then can't back it up. no one on the warmer side can do that. So.....here we are. I have my views for which someone wants me to die for. huh? What kind of messed up crap is that? I say, anytime to each and everyone of those k00ks.

 

[Wuwei]

But CO2 is not a blanket, it is a gas with properties that only allow it to absorb so much heat and then saturate. Once saturated it can no longer absorb and thus any additional heat will be sent to space.

CO2 can absorb LWIR but any heat is immediately dispersed in the surrounding atmosphere. The CO2 is intimately mixed with the atmosphere and very quickly becomes the same temperature as its immediate environment (mostly O2 and N2). In short, CO2 does not store heat any differently than the atmosphere.

 

[jc456]

But CO2 is not a blanket, it is a gas with properties that only allow it to absorb so much heat and then saturate. Once saturated it can no longer absorb and thus any additional heat will be sent to space.

CO2 can absorb LWIR but any heat is immediately dispersed in the surrounding atmosphere. The CO2 is intimately mixed with the atmosphere and very quickly becomes the same temperature as its immediate environment (mostly O2 and N2). In short, CO2 does not store heat any differently than the atmosphere.

agreed, but that heat is in the atmosphere and only limits the heat from escaping from the surface and flushing directly to space. However, at night with no clouds, it does get quite cold on the surface so it is subject to the sun rays.

 

[Wuwei]

yes, your link was spot on to that paragraph. I read through much of this article, not all of it. In summary, I conclude there is no more known today about what happens to IR rising through the atmosphere then there was one hundred years ago. Wator vapor holds heat, it's why we have a temperature humidity index. Because humid air adds stress to our breathing making a surface temperature seem much hotter then it actually is. Not CO2. There is absolutely no evidence as to what will happen with added CO2. They state that in that article. They presume and predict, but they do not have observed.

I quote: "Thus a good part of the radiation that rises from the surface is absorbed by these gases in the middle levels of the atmosphere."

what is a good part? Why can't they put a number on it? I'll tell you why, because they don't know. Does CO2 cause warming, no. Does CO2 assist the planet stay warm, yes. How much? No one can say, or at least is offering any number. How much heat does 120 PPM of CO2 add to the surface? ummm, no number. 10 PPM of CO2, ummm no number. Why? Can you answer why a number can't be provided?

The scope of the article was not quantitative. It simply was a qualitative explanation of the physics behind the phenomenon. It was not a treatise on AGW, and you shouldn't have tried to read that into it. If you read the whole article you would see that there were no numbers given anywhere. My major reason in pointing out the article is so that you might have more knowledge so that you could understand IANC better. The article clearly says why the TOA is so important in understanding the climate in general.

Your conclusion about the lack of new knowledge for 100 years is wrong. If you are interested in science history, go back to the beginning of the article. That gives the history.

I did read it, and again, there is nothing known today that wasn't known then. I read it looking for an observation. What was it, that CO2 can make water vapor? So the only water vapor is from CO2, is that what you think it's saying. I thought the oceans and other bodies of water provided water vapor? hmmmm, I missed that.

Dude, again, I trust most all of what Ian writes. he believes a little differently than me, but for the most part I believe he is in pursuit of understanding how the atmosphere works. I only care because some punk said we're all gonna die unless we stop breathing. Doh!! if I stop breathing, I ....... Therefore I ask, prove to me that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. And you know what? The answer to that is ..............................................I'm still waiting. You've provided no answer to that question. back radiation black bodies all of that crap, means nothing to me. What does is this question.... what does 120 PPM of CO2 do to temperatures? Give me a number as well. I've evolved a little for an additional request.

oh, oh, one additional thing, the thing that motivates me is when someone uses the word consensus and then can't back it up. no one on the warmer side can do that. So.....here we are. I have my views for which someone wants me to die for. huh? What kind of messed up crap is that? I say, anytime to each and everyone of those k00ks.

I read they entire article. They are very objective scientifically. But it is a very hard read. It looks like you misread some of it. If you don't agree with what it says I'm not going to argue further because the physics is too complex for a forum discussion.

Also I am not a punk kook who thinks the earth will disintegrate. I have a great skepticism of CAGW and a bit of skepticism of AGW. My attitude may change in 20 years when we see how the climate is heading. You certainly have a right to be skeptical, but I'm not going to call anyone on either side of the debate a kook unless that person has silly ideas on the science. There is enough reason to be skeptical without having to resort to ridicule or ridiculous ideas.