2013 was the 4th warmest year based on noaa data

[SwimExpert]

Doesn't it ever strike you that you have a lot fewer references to quote than do the folks with whom you're arguing?

Nonsense. I can quote Wikipedia just as many times as you.

That REALLY ought to tell you something.

Actually, I've already told you multiple times already. I'm more interested in failings of logic and fact. You can say something that completely disagree with, but I'll be happy if you're logic is valid and your facts ring true. On the other hand, say something I agree with completely, and I'll rip you a new one if your logic is flawed or your facts are false.

You are the one who believes the AGW shtick. You are the one espousing it so ferociously. Yet you cannot provide a single piece of support for it. All you can say is "Well, someone else said it was true."

 

[polarbear]

And UV can penetrate meters deep into the ocean to warm them. Long wave IR can only penetrate MICRONS deep. Which means that IR CAN NOT raise the heat of the oceans, which means IR CAN NOT raise the heat of the planet.

Case. Closed.

So the IR is absorbed in the first millimeter of the oceans, but doesn't heat the oceans. Apparently, that first millimeter of the ocean isn't part of the ocean. Or something like that.

Yep, it's more of that magical denialist physics. They're not very good at understanding heat flow in the real world. Though that bit isn't particularly important, since the ocean gets very little heat in the IR bands.

Real world. The ocean absorbs most the energy it gets from the sun in the visible wavelengths, and the ocean generally is warmer than the atmosphere. The denialists manage to get that much right.

Then they start failing. They don't fathom that heat transfer _out_ of the ocean is mainly based on delta-T between ocean and air. Higher air temps, lower delta_T, less heat out, ocean keeps more heat. Hence the net result is that warming air temps warm the oceans, even if air temps are still lower than ocean temps.

No, that`s when you start failing .
The radiative heat transfer equation is:
Net Radiation Loss Rate

If a hot object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be expressed as

q = ε σ (Th^4 - Tc^4) Ac (3)
where
Th = hot body absolute temperature (K)
Tc = cold surroundings absolute temperature (K)
Ac = area of the object (m^2)


At no time does Tc "warm" Th as long as Th is > Tc
what does happen is that less heat is transferred from Th to Tc if Tc has warmed up.
There is a big difference between reduced heat loss and heating
The only thing that can make Th warmer is something hotter than Th, the sun, not the cooler air Tc.

What would "q" be, if the sun is gone, like at night and if Th = Tc ?
The product "q" would be zero ! ...there is no longer any heat transfer, either radiative or conductive....between Th and Tc


You got it all wrong, it`s not the cooler air at Tc which makes Th "hotter" ...not even one IPCC "scientist" says so.
Most of you guys got confused by Roy Spencer`s "thought experiment"...and even Roy is quick to point out where the extra heat came from.
It comes from the hotter heater, not from the cooler 2.nd bar . All that cooler bar does is reducing the heat loss of the hotter bar, but it`s the
heater which is hotter than any of the bars that does the actual heating.

The "climatologists" also do say it`s the 400ppm CO2 which "back-radiates" 1.5 watts/m^2 of the 15 µm IR it has absorbed from Th....the ground, or in this case from the ocean water.
And nowhere do they say that the number of watts/m^2 AGW CO2 "back radiation" at 15µm depends on the air temperature.

If there is more than 1.5 watt/m^2 heat "back radiated", then it did not come from the 400 ppm CO2 but from another natural source like humid & hot air which has dick all to do with CO2 and man made "warming"




​

 

[Abraham3]

And nowhere do they say that the number of watts/m^2 AGW CO2 "back radiation" at 15µm depends on the air temperature.

Really? Now, I'm assuming that when you say "air" you do mean the air that contains the CO2 as part of its mix. But, then, you'd be saying that 800C air radiates no more energy than 8C air and I'm truly sorry to say this, but that's just wrong.

 

[polarbear]

And nowhere do they say that the number of watts/m^2 AGW CO2 "back radiation" at 15µm depends on the air temperature.

Really? Now, I'm assuming that when you say "air" you do mean the air that contains the CO2 as part of its mix. But, then, you'd be saying that 800C air radiates no more energy than 8C air and I'm truly sorry to say this, but that's just wrong.

So where did I say that?
What`s the matter?...your little bird brain can`t figure out the difference between the black body radiation of a 800C hot gas which is all over the spectrum and what CO2 can absorb and re-emit as "back radiation" at very specific wave bands.
Here is a quickie course for dummies like you...this is how CO2 absorbs and re-emits IR:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5gimZlFY6I"]Vibration of a CO2 molecule - YouTube[/ame]

Next you should also find an AGW course for dummies, like "skepticalscience.com" or something like that and get them to explain it to you why the rest of the black body spectrum your 800 C hot blow torch air emits doesn`t matter, That`s because all the rest of the heat it radiates passes by the so called "atmospheric window" which is at 15µm....the one that is blocked by 400 ppm CO2.
You are just a run of the mill stupid troll and an EXTREMELY stupid one at that, who hasn`t got the slightest clue when it comes to basic physics and math..not even how this so called AGW "science" is supposed to work.

 

[Kosh]

Bottom line is that CO2 does NOT drive climate.

 

[orogenicman]

Bottom line is that CO2 does NOT drive climate.

Wow, I'm convinced. Oh wait...

 

[orogenicman]

And nowhere do they say that the number of watts/m^2 AGW CO2 "back radiation" at 15µm depends on the air temperature.

Really? Now, I'm assuming that when you say "air" you do mean the air that contains the CO2 as part of its mix. But, then, you'd be saying that 800C air radiates no more energy than 8C air and I'm truly sorry to say this, but that's just wrong.

So where did I say that?
What`s the matter?...your little bird brain can`t figure out the difference between the black body radiation of a 800C hot gas which is all over the spectrum and what CO2 can absorb and re-emit as "back radiation" at very specific wave bands.
Here is a quickie course for dummies like you...this is how CO2 absorbs and re-emits IR:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5gimZlFY6I"]Vibration of a CO2 molecule - YouTube[/ame]

Next you should also find an AGW course for dummies, like "skepticalscience.com" or something like that and get them to explain it to you why the rest of the black body spectrum your 800 C hot blow torch air emits doesn`t matter, That`s because all the rest of the heat it radiates passes by the so called "atmospheric window" which is at 15µm....the one that is blocked by 400 ppm CO2.
You are just a run of the mill stupid troll and an EXTREMELY stupid one at that, who hasn`t got the slightest clue when it comes to basic physics and math..not even how this so called AGW "science" is supposed to work.

You should validate your hypothesis by inserting your head in an 800 degree C furnace and see if, after ten minutes, it comes out as charcoal or if you come out with a smile on your face having proven your hypothesis as the way to go. Good luck with that.

 

[Abraham3]

And nowhere do they say that the number of watts/m^2 AGW CO2 "back radiation" at 15µm depends on the air temperature.

Really? Now, I'm assuming that when you say "air" you do mean the air that contains the CO2 as part of its mix. But, then, you'd be saying that 800C air radiates no more energy than 8C air and I'm truly sorry to say this, but that's just wrong.

So where did I say that?

When you said that the number of watts emitted in the 15 um band was independent of temperature.

What`s the matter?...your little bird brain can`t figure out the difference between the black body radiation of a 800C hot gas which is all over the spectrum and what CO2 can absorb and re-emit as "back radiation" at very specific wave bands.

Next you should also find an AGW course for dummies, like "skepticalscience.com" or something like that and get them to explain it to you why the rest of the black body spectrum your 800 C hot blow torch air emits doesn`t matter, That`s because all the rest of the heat it radiates passes by the so called "atmospheric window" which is at 15µm....the one that is blocked by 400 ppm CO2.

1) The amount of radiation coming out of a volume of gas is directly dependent on its temperature (Planck's Law). As temperature rises, the energy under the spectrum curve, including CO2's 15um absorption band, increases.
2) That CO2 absorbs and reemits in a narrow band does not block the movement of radiation, it slows or smears it as radiation is absorbed and reemitted. Fifteen micron radiation does eventually reach the Earth's surface or escapes to space.

 

[SwimExpert]

So where did I say that?

If he wants you to say it, he will hear it, no matter how different it is than what you have said.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bottom line is that CO2 does NOT drive climate.

Wow, I'm convinced. Oh wait...

 

[polarbear]

And nowhere do they say that the number of watts/m^2 AGW CO2 "back radiation" at 15µm depends on the air temperature.

Really? Now, I'm assuming that when you say "air" you do mean the air that contains the CO2 as part of its mix. But, then, you'd be saying that 800C air radiates no more energy than 8C air and I'm truly sorry to say this, but that's just wrong.

So where did I say that?

When you said that the number of watts emitted in the 15 um band was independent of temperature.

What`s the matter?...your little bird brain can`t figure out the difference between the black body radiation of a 800C hot gas which is all over the spectrum and what CO2 can absorb and re-emit as "back radiation" at very specific wave bands.

Next you should also find an AGW course for dummies, like "skepticalscience.com" or something like that and get them to explain it to you why the rest of the black body spectrum your 800 C hot blow torch air emits doesn`t matter, That`s because all the rest of the heat it radiates passes by the so called "atmospheric window" which is at 15µm....the one that is blocked by 400 ppm CO2.

1) The amount of radiation coming out of a volume of gas is directly dependent on its temperature (Planck's Law). As temperature rises, the energy under the spectrum curve, including CO2's 15um absorption band, increases.
2) That CO2 absorbs and reemits in a narrow band does not block the movement of radiation, it slows or smears it as radiation is absorbed and reemitted. Fifteen micron radiation does eventually reach the Earth's surface or escapes to space.

**** this is incredible how stupid you are.
You still don`t know the difference between C=O resonance which absorbs and re-emits IR only at specific wavelength:
http://www.elmhurst.edu/%7Echm/vchembook/images/irCO2.JPEG

And black body radiation is spread out over the entire spectrum like the one you copied and pasted which starts out at 3000 K and tops out at 5000K....also called a continuous spectrum as the top one, as opposed to an absorption and emission spectrum below it:
http://astro.unl.edu/naap/hr/graphics/Spectral_lines_en.png

These absorption and emission lines are specific to the substance at hand and have a specific wavelength and intensity...that`s how spectroscopic analysis works....and they don`t get more intense with increased temperature.


First you went to an 800 C extreme and now you are at 5000K to tell me that a black body radiates at any wavelength...as if I did not know or said otherwise and now you also added that

That CO2 absorbs and reemits in a narrow band does not block the movement of radiation, it slows or smears it as radiation is absorbed and reemitted.

Oh really, CO2 slows and "smears" radiation ?
I`ve done a lot of IR spectral analysis and never noticed that.

You have to write a paper on that, because the rest of us are under the impression that it does block light from going straight through and re-emits whatever it has absorbed over a 360 deg steradian.


So can your little bird brain connect all these dots and figure out what would happen if you go to an 800 C blow torch temperature extreme?

...and that what your 800 C hot blow torch emits as IR has **** all to do any more with 15 µm IR absorption and re-emission.

Maybe you should watch another demonstration for dummies like you.
That candle isn`t 800 C hot but it`s hot enough:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo"]CO2 experiment - YouTube[/ame]

So where did all that IR from the hot candle go ?
According to you there should have been plenty more IR from the hot flame to make up for what the CO2 absorbed.

2) That CO2 absorbs and reemits in a narrow band does not block the movement of radiation, it slows or smears it as radiation is absorbed

Oh now I get it, what you are saying...if he would have waited longer than just a few minutes that radiation that the CO2 "slows" would have eventually reached his camera.

Keep it up, none of us science "deniers" can shoot down the IPCC AGW "science" better than you can.

 

[orogenicman]

You should be able to validate your hypothesis by inserting your head in an 800 degree C furnace and seeing if, after ten minutes, your head comes out as charcoal or if it comes out with a smile on its face after having proven your hypothesis as the way to go. Good luck with that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You should be able to validate your hypothesis by inserting your head in an 800 degree C furnace and seeing if, after ten minutes, your head comes out as charcoal or if it comes out with a smile on its face after having proven your hypothesis as the way to go. Good luck with that.

No, the Warmers aren't a sick, death worshiping Cult. Where do people get these ideas?

 

[mamooth]

No, that`s when you start failing .
The radiative heat transfer equation is:

... quite irrelevant, since the ocean isn't heating the air in any significant way by radiation. It is heating by conduction, which is governed more or less by straight delta-T. There will be a tiny amount of radiative heating, but the conductive heating will be vastly greater. Hence, the radiative heating can be ignored.

So, all your colored fonts were for nothing, because you didn't understand the basic physics involved. And I have no idea why it kept going into a display of how you don't understand backradiation.

 

[mamooth]

You still don`t know the difference between C=O resonance which absorbs and re-emits IR only at specific wavelength:

That's a red herring that has nothing to do with the issue involved.

I`ve done a lot of IR spectral analysis and never noticed that.

You keep assuming whatever you've experienced has to be only physical process involved. That's not generally the case.

CO2 absorbs an IR photon and gains vibrational energy. It occasionally loses that energy by emitting a photon, but more often it loses that vibrational energy by bouncing into other gas molecules. That warms the entire atmosphere around the CO2, and so the whole atmosphere emits more IR photons. Your showed a major misunderstanding of the physics by declaring that CO2 could only lose energy by emitting a photon.

As far as emission lines go, it's what backradiation is composed of. Hundreds of them, often spaced closely enough to look like smooth curve. Here's a sample.

 

[SwimExpert]

You should be able to validate your hypothesis by inserting your head in an 800 degree C furnace and seeing if, after ten minutes, your head comes out as charcoal or if it comes out with a smile on its face after having proven your hypothesis as the way to go. Good luck with that.

Now they're going to burn you at the stake if you won't believe their AGW crap.

 

[orogenicman]

You should be able to validate your hypothesis by inserting your head in an 800 degree C furnace and seeing if, after ten minutes, your head comes out as charcoal or if it comes out with a smile on its face after having proven your hypothesis as the way to go. Good luck with that.

Now they're going to burn you at the stake if you won't believe their AGW crap.

You've not carefully paid attention to this thread, have you?

 

[Kosh]

You should be able to validate your hypothesis by inserting your head in an 800 degree C furnace and seeing if, after ten minutes, your head comes out as charcoal or if it comes out with a smile on its face after having proven your hypothesis as the way to go. Good luck with that.

Now they're going to burn you at the stake if you won't believe their AGW crap.

You've not carefully paid attention to this thread, have you?

Nor have you, but it didn't stop you from posting the AGW church mantra now did it?

 

[orogenicman]

Now they're going to burn you at the stake if you won't believe their AGW crap.

You've not carefully paid attention to this thread, have you?

Nor have you, but it didn't stop you from posting the AGW church mantra now did it?

Are you a religious person?

 

[Abraham3]

You should be able to validate your hypothesis by inserting your head in an 800 degree C furnace and seeing if, after ten minutes, your head comes out as charcoal or if it comes out with a smile on its face after having proven your hypothesis as the way to go. Good luck with that.

Now they're going to burn you at the stake if you won't believe their AGW crap.

And just yesterday you bemoaned the fact that it would be illegal to murder me. How very consistent and principled of you.

It would be good to see this passive aggressive crap come to an end on both sides.