Challenge to the Warmers: What's your Theory?

[konradv]

I've stated what I think your hypothesis in several different ways.

Correct me where I'm wrong.
Hypothesis: Deminimus annual increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 can cause cataclysmic changes in Earth's climate

How often to we have to go over this? 30-40% ISN'T deminimus.

But I thought you said that we're adding 15B tons of CO2 annually?

Yeah, is 15B suddenly "deminimus", too? I thought you said that sounded very high? I think you need to take a break. Your questions are making even less sense than usual.

 

[konradv]

Of course you don't care because the experiment proves your claim wrong. The energy of the earth only increases if the molecule is abosrbed and it isn't being absorbed because the EM field emitted by the earth is of a greater magnitude than that being emitted by the atmosphere. There is no transfer of energy from the atmosphere to the earth. If you beleive there is, by all means lets see the math. RWatt did the math and proved that there was no transfer of energy from cool to warm and isn't able to accept his own results. Do you fall into that catergory as well?

Clearly the topic is over your head. How do you explain a surface absorbing 161 watts per square meter of energy from its only power source radiating 356 watts per square meter of energy?

Rather than shuck and jive, how about you answer the question. How do you explain it?

Now molecules are getting absorbed?!?! I thought we were talking photons! How does an emitted photon "know" whether it's traveling from a hot-to-cold or vice versa? I think your point is ludicrous. If a photon gets re-emitted in the direction of earth, that IS transfer of energy. Did you expect us not to realize that? Your conception of AGW theory gets goofier by the minute!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How often to we have to go over this? 30-40% ISN'T deminimus.

But I thought you said that we're adding 15B tons of CO2 annually?

Yeah, is 15B suddenly "deminimus", too? I thought you said that sounded very high? I think you need to take a break. Your questions are making even less sense than usual.

15Billion tons! Eek! What a big number! Surely there is no way Mother Gaia could absorb that punishment!

Here's the math.

Earth atmosphere in tons: 5E+15 tons

Mankind net annual contribution: 1.5E + 10 tons

Divide 15 BILLION TONS!!! by Earths atmosphere and you get 3E-6, or .0003%.

It's not even a rounding error, genius.

 

[konradv]

But I thought you said that we're adding 15B tons of CO2 annually?

Yeah, is 15B suddenly "deminimus", too? I thought you said that sounded very high? I think you need to take a break. Your questions are making even less sense than usual.

15Billion tons! Eek! What a big number! Surely there is no way Mother Gaia could absorb that punishment!

Here's the math.

Earth atmosphere in tons: 5E+15 tons

Mankind net annual contribution: 1.5E + 10 tons

Divide 15 BILLION TONS!!! by Earths atmosphere and you get 3E-6, or .0003%.

It's not even a rounding error, genius.

So what? As you've been told repeatedly, the absolute values aren't as important as the delta. The 30-40% change seen since the advent of the Industrial Revolution is the important number, not the one you cherry-picked because it was small.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yeah, is 15B suddenly "deminimus", too? I thought you said that sounded very high? I think you need to take a break. Your questions are making even less sense than usual.

15Billion tons! Eek! What a big number! Surely there is no way Mother Gaia could absorb that punishment!

Here's the math.

Earth atmosphere in tons: 5E+15 tons

Mankind net annual contribution: 1.5E + 10 tons

Divide 15 BILLION TONS!!! by Earths atmosphere and you get 3E-6, or .0003%.

It's not even a rounding error, genius.

So what? As you've been told repeatedly, the absolute values aren't as important as the delta. The 30-40% change seen since the advent of the Industrial Revolution is the important number, not the one you cherry-picked because it was small.

LOL

So what is a terrific answer, Gomer.

 

[Big Fitz]

Yeah, is 15B suddenly "deminimus", too? I thought you said that sounded very high? I think you need to take a break. Your questions are making even less sense than usual.

15Billion tons! Eek! What a big number! Surely there is no way Mother Gaia could absorb that punishment!

Here's the math.

Earth atmosphere in tons: 5E+15 tons

Mankind net annual contribution: 1.5E + 10 tons

Divide 15 BILLION TONS!!! by Earths atmosphere and you get 3E-6, or .0003%.

It's not even a rounding error, genius.

So what? As you've been told repeatedly, the absolute values aren't as important as the delta. The 30-40% change seen since the advent of the Industrial Revolution is the important number, not the one you cherry-picked because it was small.

Sloppy science isn't accurate science. And now we're going to try and play off something that isn't even the size of the margin of error is suddenly critical elsewhere? And speaking of cherrypicked. How about the 3 Siberian tree samples out of thousands as the basis for the fraudulent hockey stick? That's good cherry picking versus bad?

Wow... talk about desperate religion in action.

 

[wirebender]

Now molecules are getting absorbed?!?! I thought we were talking photons! How does an emitted photon "know" whether it's traveling from a hot-to-cold or vice versa? I think your point is ludicrous. If a photon gets re-emitted in the direction of earth, that IS transfer of energy. Did you expect us not to realize that? Your conception of AGW theory gets goofier by the minute!!!

Sorry. I was running out of time at lunch and failed to proof read my post. Clearly I didn't intend to say molecule. As to photons, they go nowhere on thier own. Depending on which text you read, they are either unable to move unless it is upon an electromagnetic field or they are the actual "stuff" that makes up the field. Here, I gave RWatt the definition of photon but as you clearly don't grasp what a photon is, I will provide them for you as well.

photon - The quantum of electromagnetic energy, regarded as a discrete particle having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime.

For your reference, here is also a definition of quantum.

quantum - The smallest amount of a physical quantity that can exist independently, especially a discrete quantity of electromagnetic radiation.

You should be able to read that definition and grasp that a photon is not a free agent but is the smallest part of the electromagnetic fields that you just subtracted to zero. When yuo were subtracting, you were subtracting energy, photons; the whole of the EM field.

photon - a unit of energy in the form of light.

photon - a subatomic particle, having energy and momentum but no mass or electric charge, that is the quantum unit of electromagnetic radiation, including light

photon - a quantum of electromagnetic radiation

What you clearly don't grasp is that an EM field can not travel upstream against a stronger EM field. When you calculate the strength of the EM field emitted by the atmosphere and the strenght of the EM field emitted by the earth, it is clear that the field emitted by the earth is stronger. You must subtract the two fields and the stronger determines which direction the resulting field will be propagated. In the case of atmosphere vs earth, the earth has the stronger field so all energy is moving away from the earth except that which is coming in from the sun which is arriving as a stronger EM field than the earth emits.

If the weaker field from the atmosphere can not travel against the stronger field emitted from the earth then no photons from the atmosphere reach the earth. The definitions I gave you clearly indicate that photons are not free agents. They only go where the EM field they are associated with go.

Now feel free to do the math for yourself to prove that no energy transferrs from the atmosphere to the earth. Look back through the thread and you will find all the formulas, physical laws, and quantities necessary in both my own and RWatt's posts. He did the math and found that no energy transfer is possible between a cooler object and a warmer object. Your faith is no match for actual science or mathematics.

 

[wirebender]

So what? As you've been told repeatedly, the absolute values aren't as important as the delta. The 30-40% change seen since the advent of the Industrial Revolution is the important number, not the one you cherry-picked because it was small.

Sure, we have all been told that. But to date, even your climate priests have not proved it. Show me the math. Show me that the delta is more important than the absolute when the fact is that the absolute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has no bearing on either the temperature of the earth or of its climate.

30 to 40 % of a trace gas doesn't change the fact that CO2 is still a trace gas that doesn't change the temperature or the climate.

How about you quit dodging and explain how it is that you believe that a surface that is absorbing 161 watts per square meter from its ONLY energy source can radiate more than twice that amount of energy. If that can happen, why don't we put reflectors on our heaters and create twice as much energy as we get from the electric company?

 

[ScienceRocks]

A question---

What would effect the earth climate more.
1# 200 ppm increase in co2
2# .5% increase of solar output

thanks

 

[Old Rocks]

A question---

What would effect the earth climate more.
1# 200 ppm increase in co2
2# .5% increase of solar output

thanks

At present, the understanding is that there was a 0.25% decrease in TSI during the Maunder Minimum.

Causes of Millennial-Scale Climate Change

So, an increase of 0.5% in the TSI would have very significant effects. As will an increase of 200 ppm of CO2. Would a decrease of 0.5% TSI balance an increase of 200 ppm? I don't really know, and have never seen anyone do the projections on such a situation. However, for sure, and increase of 0.5% TSI and 200 ppm of CO2 would definately be catastrophic.

 

[idb]

I really wish I had the time to read this thread properly!
This is supposed to be the most pressing issue of our age and I'm too busy keeping myself and my staff employed.

Is it too lazy to trust in the advice of the majority of experts?
That's what we educate and pay them for, so that we don't have to become experts ourselves.

 

[wirebender]

A question---

What would effect the earth climate more.
1# 200 ppm increase in co2
2# .5% increase of solar output

thanks

Any change in solar output would effect the climate more than any amount of a trace gas that has no mechanism by which to trap heat or cause warming. A great deal of math has been done on this thread in the past week or so and it proves that there is no energy transfer from a cooler object to a warmer object. The cooler atmosphere does not, can not, never has nor never wil warm the earth.

 

[wirebender]

I really wish I had the time to read this thread properly!
This is supposed to be the most pressing issue of our age and I'm too busy keeping myself and my staff employed.

Is it too lazy to trust in the advice of the majority of experts?
That's what we educate and pay them for, so that we don't have to become experts ourselves.

First, the claims of climate science are not supported by a "majority" of experts. There is a small clique of highly financed experts that are claiming that small increases in CO2 have a great effect on the climate. Second, as far as time goes, it takes almost no time at all to examine the hard, observed evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate. It takes no time because there is no such evidence. The claims of climate science are based on computer models and highly massaged observed data. Third, when politics cozies up this close to any science, you have to know that it stops being science and becomes a pseudoscience driven by political and monetary factors.

Look back over history at the number of times the claimed majority has been completely wrong but continued on because they had the support of the political powers of the time. History, and the dictionary tells us that consensus is a matter of politics, not science.

If you must worry about climate, concern yourself about the claimed grand minimum the sun is supposed to be going into. If that happens, the warmers will find out in quick time that cold is far far far worse for human beings as well as other species than warm.

 

[idb]

I really wish I had the time to read this thread properly!
This is supposed to be the most pressing issue of our age and I'm too busy keeping myself and my staff employed.

Is it too lazy to trust in the advice of the majority of experts?
That's what we educate and pay them for, so that we don't have to become experts ourselves.

First, the claims of climate science are not supported by a "majority" of experts. There is a small clique of highly financed experts that are claiming that small increases in CO2 have a great effect on the climate. Second, as far as time goes, it takes almost no time at all to examine the hard, observed evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate. It takes no time because there is no such evidence. The claims of climate science are based on computer models and highly massaged observed data. Third, when politics cozies up this close to any science, you have to know that it stops being science and becomes a pseudoscience driven by political and monetary factors.

Look back over history at the number of times the claimed majority has been completely wrong but continued on because they had the support of the political powers of the time. History, and the dictionary tells us that consensus is a matter of politics, not science.

Maybe the first step would be to convince me on this lack of consensus.
If you must worry about climate, concern yourself about the claimed grand minimum the sun is supposed to be going into. If that happens, the warmers will find out in quick time that cold is far far far worse for human beings as well as other species than warm.

For every opinion there's a dissenting one, I'm a complete layman on matters of climate so how to sift through it?

My limited research would suggest that the consensus of climatologists is that there is climate change occurring and that anthropogenic causes are involved.

On the other hand I admit to having a problem over the quality of understanding of the processes involved.
I don't know...maybe the earth is warming due to solar effects and this is what's causing the sea to warm and shed CO2? Not the other way around?

Some say that co2 isn't even a 'greenhouse gas'.

Measuring is easily compromised making records unreliable...and on and on...

But, as I said, there are people that study these things for a living, it seems to me that the majority of them accept that there is anthropogenic climate change happening...why shouldn't I trust them?

 

[wirebender]

For every opinion there's a dissenting one, I'm a complete layman on matters of climate so how to sift through it?

It really isn't that tough. Climate science is, in large part, based on little more than a fallacious appeal to complexity. The actual science (hard science - physics / chemistry) that defines what is and is not possible isn't that complicated. There was a pretty good exchange between myself and RWatt on this thread. It goes into what can and can not happen based on they physics. RWatt has not responded to the final post even though he has been posting on the board. I don't know if that means that he has convinced himelf that he has been mistaken or not, but it is interesting that he hasn't been back. Here are links to the specific posts. As you can see, the math isn't that tough.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3739629-post138.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3747723-post160.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3749183-post165.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3752896-post193.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3757921-post208.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3757983-post209.html

The crux of the issue where RWatt proves to himself that the foundation upon which climate science is built is false.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3758427-post211.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3774581-post215.html

and RWatt has not responded since. These posts go through the basic math. If the math says it can't happen, no amount of appeal to complexity will ever make it happen.

 

[idb]

For every opinion there's a dissenting one, I'm a complete layman on matters of climate so how to sift through it?

It really isn't that tough. Climate science is, in large part, based on little more than a fallacious appeal to complexity. The actual science (hard science - physics / chemistry) that defines what is and is not possible isn't that complicated. There was a pretty good exchange between myself and RWatt on this thread. It goes into what can and can not happen based on they physics. RWatt has not responded to the final post even though he has been posting on the board. I don't know if that means that he has convinced himelf that he has been mistaken or not, but it is interesting that he hasn't been back. Here are links to the specific posts. As you can see, the math isn't that tough.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3739629-post138.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3747723-post160.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3749183-post165.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3752896-post193.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3757921-post208.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3757983-post209.html

The crux of the issue where RWatt proves to himself that the foundation upon which climate science is built is false.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3758427-post211.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3774581-post215.html

and RWatt has not responded since. These posts go through the basic math. If the math says it can't happen, no amount of appeal to complexity will ever make it happen.

The individual processes might not seem that hard to understand, but the relationship between them is surely where the complexity comes in.
I have some difficulty accepting that we can have total confidence in our understanding of the interactions between the drivers of the earth's climate.

 

[wirebender]

The individual processes might not seem that hard to understand, but the relationship between them is surely where the complexity comes in.
I have some difficulty accepting that we can have total confidence in our understanding of the interactions between the drivers of the earth's climate.

I am afraid that it isn't. At the heart of AGW claims is downdwelling radiation from atmospheric CO2. Without that, you don't have a greenhouse hypothesis and without that you don't have man made climate change.

Downdwelling radiation is supposedly IR emitted from the earth being "diverted" in all directions by greenhouse gas molecules and some of that diverted energy being sent back towards the earth and, in fact, warming the surface of the earth causing the earth to emit more IR.

The simple fact is that heat doesn't flow from a cool object to a warm object. Electromagnetic fields are the means of energy flow. Oppose two EM fields and the stronger field determines the direction of energy flow. Energy can not flow "upstream" against the stronger "current" of a more powerful EM field. The EM field emitted by the earth is stronger than that emitted by the atmosphere, therefore energy does not flow from the cooler atmosphere back to the surface of the earth to be absorbed.

The list of links above is a progression through the math that proves that downdwelling radiation is not happening. Without that, there is no greenhouse effect and no man made global warming. If the foundation upon which the warmist claims is flawed, the rest of the claims mean nothing no matter how complex they might be, and the fact is that the complexity is deliberate as it serves to detract from the foundational error espoused by climate science.

If you simply want to beleive, go ahead but know that that belief is the result of a particular political mindset and not due to any hard, observable scientific evidence.

 

[idb]

The individual processes might not seem that hard to understand, but the relationship between them is surely where the complexity comes in.
I have some difficulty accepting that we can have total confidence in our understanding of the interactions between the drivers of the earth's climate.

I am afraid that it isn't. At the heart of AGW claims is downdwelling radiation from atmospheric CO2. Without that, you don't have a greenhouse hypothesis and without that you don't have man made climate change.

Downdwelling radiation is supposedly IR emitted from the earth being "diverted" in all directions by greenhouse gas molecules and some of that diverted energy being sent back towards the earth and, in fact, warming the surface of the earth causing the earth to emit more IR.

The simple fact is that heat doesn't flow from a cool object to a warm object. Electromagnetic fields are the means of energy flow. Oppose two EM fields and the stronger field determines the direction of energy flow. Energy can not flow "upstream" against the stronger "current" of a more powerful EM field. The EM field emitted by the earth is stronger than that emitted by the atmosphere, therefore energy does not flow from the cooler atmosphere back to the surface of the earth to be absorbed.

The list of links above is a progression through the math that proves that downdwelling radiation is not happening. Without that, there is no greenhouse effect and no man made global warming. If the foundation upon which the warmist claims is flawed, the rest of the claims mean nothing no matter how complex they might be, and the fact is that the complexity is deliberate as it serves to detract from the foundational error espoused by climate science.

If you simply want to beleive, go ahead but know that that belief is the result of a particular political mindset and not due to any hard, observable scientific evidence.

I can follow the maths if I screw up my face and concentrate but, as I have more of an engineering background, I like to be able to visualise the concepts.
Your explanation above is compelling.

I like to ski.
I imagine standing in a snowy ravine on a cloudless day with the sun shining on one side of the ravine only.
I am equidistant from both sides of the ravine.
I am in the shade and there is no wind.
The question is, would I feel warmer on the side of me that is facing the side of the ravine that has the sun on it?
Would there be reflected heat?
I suspect not.
At least not until the sunburn set in!

 

[konradv]

The individual processes might not seem that hard to understand, but the relationship between them is surely where the complexity comes in.
I have some difficulty accepting that we can have total confidence in our understanding of the interactions between the drivers of the earth's climate.

I am afraid that it isn't. At the heart of AGW claims is downdwelling radiation from atmospheric CO2. Without that, you don't have a greenhouse hypothesis and without that you don't have man made climate change.

Downdwelling radiation is supposedly IR emitted from the earth being "diverted" in all directions by greenhouse gas molecules and some of that diverted energy being sent back towards the earth and, in fact, warming the surface of the earth causing the earth to emit more IR.

The simple fact is that heat doesn't flow from a cool object to a warm object. Electromagnetic fields are the means of energy flow. Oppose two EM fields and the stronger field determines the direction of energy flow. Energy can not flow "upstream" against the stronger "current" of a more powerful EM field. The EM field emitted by the earth is stronger than that emitted by the atmosphere, therefore energy does not flow from the cooler atmosphere back to the surface of the earth to be absorbed.

The list of links above is a progression through the math that proves that downdwelling radiation is not happening. Without that, there is no greenhouse effect and no man made global warming. If the foundation upon which the warmist claims is flawed, the rest of the claims mean nothing no matter how complex they might be, and the fact is that the complexity is deliberate as it serves to detract from the foundational error espoused by climate science.

If you simply want to beleive, go ahead but know that that belief is the result of a particular political mindset and not due to any hard, observable scientific evidence.

Your analysis is faulty. There's no "current" which would prevent a photon emitted from a CO2 molecule from reaching earth, regardless of temperature. You seem to inventing new laws of nature!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A question---

What would effect the earth climate more.
1# 200 ppm increase in co2
2# .5% increase of solar output

thanks

A more realistic choice would be

1. 200PPM CO2 or
2. Bumblebee farts