Correlation between temperature and CO2

[Billy_Bob]

By the way, entropy may be a significant factor in why the climate models are wrong. The disordered low quality energy returning from the atmosphere is treated as equivalent to sunlight on a watt to watt basis. It isn't.

Bad analogy warning. 100kg rock, 10 10kg stones, or a 100kg of sand. Which causes more damage falling off a roof?

The reason why the models are wrong is because they are shit. They take few variables into the equation, and those they do use are wrong in almost all cases. They are not using CFD models and instead every model they use are self described as "simple". How on earth anyone thinks you can get useful results from simple models, that are trying to model the most complex engine in the world, is beyond me.

Yup. They focus on the simple (CO2) because they can't model the local effects of water. Even though water with it's multiple pathways swamps the effect of CO2.

 

[IanC]

By the way, entropy may be a significant factor in why the climate models are wrong. The disordered low quality energy returning from the atmosphere is treated as equivalent to sunlight on a watt to watt basis. It isn't.

Bad analogy warning. 100kg rock, 10 10kg stones, or a 100kg of sand. Which causes more damage falling off a roof?

The reason why the models are wrong is because they are shit. They take few variables into the equation, and those they do use are wrong in almost all cases. They are not using CFD models and instead every model they use are self described as "simple". How on earth anyone thinks you can get useful results from simple models, that are trying to model the most complex engine in the world, is beyond me.

Yup. They focus on the simple (CO2) because they can't model the local effects of water. Even though water with it's multiple pathways swamps the effect of CO2.

They can't even model the local effect of CO2! Every model they have created, has failed.

The O-C-O satellite results certainly didn't match up to CO2 concentration their models predicted for specific locations.

The global models for a specific level of CO2 seem to give pretty reasonable results though, judging from the graphs in the AmericanThinker article.

 

[IanC]

By the way, entropy may be a significant factor in why the climate models are wrong. The disordered low quality energy returning from the atmosphere is treated as equivalent to sunlight on a watt to watt basis. It isn't.

Bad analogy warning. 100kg rock, 10 10kg stones, or a 100kg of sand. Which causes more damage falling off a roof?

The reason why the models are wrong is because they are shit. They take few variables into the equation, and those they do use are wrong in almost all cases. They are not using CFD models and instead every model they use are self described as "simple". How on earth anyone thinks you can get useful results from simple models, that are trying to model the most complex engine in the world, is beyond me.

Yup. They focus on the simple (CO2) because they can't model the local effects of water. Even though water with it's multiple pathways swamps the effect of CO2.

That implies that my position has changed on the importance of water. It hasn't.

I can and do learn though.

 

[SSDD]

I can and do learn though.

You don't seem to be able to learn the difference between what is real and what isn't.

 

[IanC]

I can and do learn though.

You don't seem to be able to learn the difference between what is real and what isn't.

Hahahaha, that's funny coming from someone who believes the macroscopic property of temperature (average kinetic speed) controls the internal conditions of a distant molecule, allowing or prohibiting emission of radiation. You have no proposed mechanism for how this happens, you have no answers for the criticisms that show this cannot happen as you claim.

When people quote the best explanations for how atomic scale interactions happen, based on years of experiments, you just hand wave it away as 'fooled by instrumentation'.

 

[SSDD]

[
Hahahaha, that's funny coming from someone who believes the macroscopic property of temperature (average kinetic speed) controls the internal conditions of a distant molecule, allowing or prohibiting emission of radiation. You have no proposed mechanism for how this happens, you have no answers for the criticisms that show this cannot happen as you claim.

No ian...what is funny is you believing that you know what goes on in a molecule based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model. And unlike you, I have every observation and measurement ever made in support of my position, while all you have are models.

 

[IanC]

[
Hahahaha, that's funny coming from someone who believes the macroscopic property of temperature (average kinetic speed) controls the internal conditions of a distant molecule, allowing or prohibiting emission of radiation. You have no proposed mechanism for how this happens, you have no answers for the criticisms that show this cannot happen as you claim.

No ian...what is funny is you believing that you know what goes on in a molecule based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model. And unlike you, I have every observation and measurement ever made in support of my position, while all you have are models.

SSDD believes a 150 year old statement, made before atomic structure was investigated, is the final word on everything.

I know that experiments based on measurements and models done since then have opened up new vistas that explain what is happening on the atomic scale, and explain why we see what we do on the macroscopic scale.

Here is just a taste of how molecular geometry is performed. Molecular geometry - Wikipedia

Follow the links or Google the individual methods to get deeper and deeper into the vast store of knowledge mankind has produced related to the microscopic world.

Or you could just close your eyes and chant 'fooled by instrumentation' like SSDD.

 

[SSDD]

[
Hahahaha, that's funny coming from someone who believes the macroscopic property of temperature (average kinetic speed) controls the internal conditions of a distant molecule, allowing or prohibiting emission of radiation. You have no proposed mechanism for how this happens, you have no answers for the criticisms that show this cannot happen as you claim.

No ian...what is funny is you believing that you know what goes on in a molecule based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model. And unlike you, I have every observation and measurement ever made in support of my position, while all you have are models.

Here is just a taste of how molecular geometry is performed. Molecular geometry - Wikipedia
.

Whaddyaknow.....more models...and from these models you believe that you know exactly what is happening inside a molecule....not only are you easily fooled by instrumentation...you believe models are reality.

 

[jc456]

SSDD is one of those people who has a talking point, and then refuses to deviate, who is unwilling to discuss the matter at a deeper level.

He is also unwilling to apply the same standards for the burden of proof to the things he believes, as opposed to ideas he doesn't like. When he likes the measurements and data then it is proof, if he doesn't then it means we are being 'fooled by instrumentation'. When he likes a model, no matter how shabby or incomplete, it is proof. If a better model more accurately accounts for the measured data, and describes the reason behind the process, but disagrees with his model, well then it is mental masturbation.

Entropy is a real concept. It is the principle behind thermodynamics. SSDD'S bizarre interpretation of physics and the SLoT is incompatible with the process of entropy, therefore SSDD is wrong.

Well since you invited comments on this one, I will add but one observation. SSDD has asked you so many times I can't count them, for one observation of the ideas you stand behind with your models. In other words, observation that proves them. To date, which I believe for my time in here is five years now, you've not provided that observation evidence. He has maintained that one level of query to which you've failed. And you call him out. funny. Every response is through a model. To which he calls you out for. And instead of providing the supported observation, you pull out, wait for it, another model/ mathematical response. It seems you are stuck in a continual loop of modeling. you want him to change his position, provide what he's asked for and stop beating the model approach.

the model/ observation rhythm has been going on too long. I can vehemently say, that unless you provide an observed source of information, his position will most likely remain the same. yada yada, yada.

 

[IanC]

[
Hahahaha, that's funny coming from someone who believes the macroscopic property of temperature (average kinetic speed) controls the internal conditions of a distant molecule, allowing or prohibiting emission of radiation. You have no proposed mechanism for how this happens, you have no answers for the criticisms that show this cannot happen as you claim.

No ian...what is funny is you believing that you know what goes on in a molecule based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model. And unlike you, I have every observation and measurement ever made in support of my position, while all you have are models.

Here is just a taste of how molecular geometry is performed. Molecular geometry - Wikipedia
.

Whaddyaknow.....more models...and from these models you believe that you know exactly what is happening inside a molecule....not only are you easily fooled by instrumentation...you believe models are reality.

So you honestly believe that all the discoveries in molecular geometry are just bunkum? All just an illusion made up in the minds of chemists and physicists?

 

[IanC]

SSDD is one of those people who has a talking point, and then refuses to deviate, who is unwilling to discuss the matter at a deeper level.

He is also unwilling to apply the same standards for the burden of proof to the things he believes, as opposed to ideas he doesn't like. When he likes the measurements and data then it is proof, if he doesn't then it means we are being 'fooled by instrumentation'. When he likes a model, no matter how shabby or incomplete, it is proof. If a better model more accurately accounts for the measured data, and describes the reason behind the process, but disagrees with his model, well then it is mental masturbation.

Entropy is a real concept. It is the principle behind thermodynamics. SSDD'S bizarre interpretation of physics and the SLoT is incompatible with the process of entropy, therefore SSDD is wrong.

Well since you invited comments on this one, I will add but one observation. SSDD has asked you so many times I can't count them, for one observation of the ideas you stand behind with your models. In other words, observation that proves them. To date, which I believe for my time in here is five years now, you've not provided that observation evidence. He has maintained that one level of query to which you've failed. And you call him out. funny. Every response is through a model. To which he calls you out for. And instead of providing the supported observation, you pull out, wait for it, another model/ mathematical response. It seems you are stuck in a continual loop of modeling. you want him to change his position, provide what he's asked for and stop beating the model approach.

the model/ observation rhythm has been going on too long. I can vehemently say, that unless you provide an observed source of information, his position will most likely remain the same. yada yada, yada.

Where do you draw the line when it comes to models? SSDD even discounts mathematics as just a model. Are you in the same camp as him?

F=ma is just a suggestion, right? How about 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed'? Just models, right?

You guys pick and choose which model you like, under certain circumstances, and discard the rest. Until the circumstances change and then you pick a different model and discard the rest. It must be very convenient for you to have to be consistent over all circumstances.

You, especially, do not understand the concepts of Thermodynamics. Entropy is beyond your ability to comprehend.

 

[IanC]

Sorry, my phone is acting up. I'll have to leave it there.

 

[jc456]

SSDD is one of those people who has a talking point, and then refuses to deviate, who is unwilling to discuss the matter at a deeper level.

He is also unwilling to apply the same standards for the burden of proof to the things he believes, as opposed to ideas he doesn't like. When he likes the measurements and data then it is proof, if he doesn't then it means we are being 'fooled by instrumentation'. When he likes a model, no matter how shabby or incomplete, it is proof. If a better model more accurately accounts for the measured data, and describes the reason behind the process, but disagrees with his model, well then it is mental masturbation.

Entropy is a real concept. It is the principle behind thermodynamics. SSDD'S bizarre interpretation of physics and the SLoT is incompatible with the process of entropy, therefore SSDD is wrong.

Well since you invited comments on this one, I will add but one observation. SSDD has asked you so many times I can't count them, for one observation of the ideas you stand behind with your models. In other words, observation that proves them. To date, which I believe for my time in here is five years now, you've not provided that observation evidence. He has maintained that one level of query to which you've failed. And you call him out. funny. Every response is through a model. To which he calls you out for. And instead of providing the supported observation, you pull out, wait for it, another model/ mathematical response. It seems you are stuck in a continual loop of modeling. you want him to change his position, provide what he's asked for and stop beating the model approach.

the model/ observation rhythm has been going on too long. I can vehemently say, that unless you provide an observed source of information, his position will most likely remain the same. yada yada, yada.

Where do you draw the line when it comes to models? SSDD even discounts mathematics as just a model. Are you in the same camp as him?

F=ma is just a suggestion, right? How about 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed'? Just models, right?

You guys pick and choose which model you like, under certain circumstances, and discard the rest. Until the circumstances change and then you pick a different model and discard the rest. It must be very convenient for you to have to be consistent over all circumstances.

You, especially, do not understand the concepts of Thermodynamics. Entropy is beyond your ability to comprehend.

I draw the line at observed vs models. modeling is not an observation, again, the issue is and has been observed vs modeling. SSDD, I and others have asked for observation. What we get in response are models. Period. The fact is you don't have it, and you could just make that statement. Instead you dick and dunk and post more models. Now you've moved to mathematical equations.

Do you have observation data to support your arguments within this discussion, if not, be honest and say it. Why are you afraid to admit it?

BTW, you know I'm no physics major, I don't contend to be. I can read and I can observe. And all I'm asking is if you want me to believe something show the evidence of that something. It can't be that difficult to do, since there are so many consensus stories.

 

[IanC]

SSDD is one of those people who has a talking point, and then refuses to deviate, who is unwilling to discuss the matter at a deeper level.

He is also unwilling to apply the same standards for the burden of proof to the things he believes, as opposed to ideas he doesn't like. When he likes the measurements and data then it is proof, if he doesn't then it means we are being 'fooled by instrumentation'. When he likes a model, no matter how shabby or incomplete, it is proof. If a better model more accurately accounts for the measured data, and describes the reason behind the process, but disagrees with his model, well then it is mental masturbation.

Entropy is a real concept. It is the principle behind thermodynamics. SSDD'S bizarre interpretation of physics and the SLoT is incompatible with the process of entropy, therefore SSDD is wrong.

Well since you invited comments on this one, I will add but one observation. SSDD has asked you so many times I can't count them, for one observation of the ideas you stand behind with your models. In other words, observation that proves them. To date, which I believe for my time in here is five years now, you've not provided that observation evidence. He has maintained that one level of query to which you've failed. And you call him out. funny. Every response is through a model. To which he calls you out for. And instead of providing the supported observation, you pull out, wait for it, another model/ mathematical response. It seems you are stuck in a continual loop of modeling. you want him to change his position, provide what he's asked for and stop beating the model approach.

the model/ observation rhythm has been going on too long. I can vehemently say, that unless you provide an observed source of information, his position will most likely remain the same. yada yada, yada.

Where do you draw the line when it comes to models? SSDD even discounts mathematics as just a model. Are you in the same camp as him?

F=ma is just a suggestion, right? How about 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed'? Just models, right?

You guys pick and choose which model you like, under certain circumstances, and discard the rest. Until the circumstances change and then you pick a different model and discard the rest. It must be very convenient for you to have to be consistent over all circumstances.

You, especially, do not understand the concepts of Thermodynamics. Entropy is beyond your ability to comprehend.

I draw the line at observed vs models. modeling is not an observation, again, the issue is and has been observed vs modeling. SSDD, I and others have asked for observation. What we get in response are models. Period. The fact is you don't have it, and you could just make that statement. Instead you dick and dunk and post more models. Now you've moved to mathematical equations.

Do you have observation data to support your arguments within this discussion, if not, be honest and say it. Why are you afraid to admit it?

BTW, you know I'm no physics major, I don't contend to be. I can read and I can observe. And all I'm asking is if you want me to believe something show the evidence of that something. It can't be that difficult to do, since there are so many consensus stories.

There is exquisite observed evidence for all the links in my chain of logic.

Do we know the emissivity of the surface, yes or no. Water, sea water, rock, soil, grass, trees, etc, etc.

Do we know the absorption bands for CO2? Yes or no?

Do we know that absorption is not dependent on temperature of CO2 but emission is (for normal terrestrial range)? Yes or no?

Do we have detailed measurements of the radiation coming off the top of the atmosphere? Yes or no?

Here is the chain of logic. The surface gives off radiation, commensurate with the emissivity and temperature of its components. The CO2 absorbs this energy and adds it to the total energy of the atmosphere. Once the air is rarified enough the CO2 turns energy from the atmosphere into escaping radiation. We know that the amount of CO2 specific energy going into the atmosphere at the bottom is less than the CO2 specific energy leaving at the top. Therefore CO2 is a warming influence.

You call this a model. I call it addition and subtraction of known energy amounts.

 

[IanC]

There are a lot of factoids in climate science. Snippets of information lacking context, but sometimes actually distorted to give misdirection as to the mechanism.

Everyone has seen the animation of the CO2 molecule absorbing and then emitting a photon. Misdirection, that almost never happens.

What about 'longwave IR can only penetrate one millimetre into water'? It is usually said in a fashion as to say IR can't heat water.

Water is a fantastic absorber of IR!!!!!! Every bit absorbed within one millimetre! All the IR energy goes into a, relatively, small volume. Of course any material that is a good absorber is an equally good emitter. Luckily water doesn't absorb visible and UV light as well as it does IR. The skin of the ocean would do a lot more evaporating, clouds and weather would be different.

This factoid is not an outright lie, all radiation that goes into the oceans gets absorbed eventually (internally reflected light is insignificant). Some might see this as higher quality heating because it directly effects a larger volume but it is still the same amount of energy.

This is distraction, making it difficult to come to the realistic conclusion that water is very reactive to LWIR. Calling it 'heating' is more complicated. If it is nighttime and the air is warmer than the water then it is heating(very poorly), otherwise it is just reducing heat loss by replacing the same amount of IR being given off the surface.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This is distraction, making it difficult to come to the realistic conclusion that water is very reactive to LWIR.

And this assumption has been proven demonstrably wrong in sea water by observed and quantified evidence. You "Believe" without fact. Show me demonstrable evidence that LWIR has any effect on a grey body of water, where its energy is released in the first 10 microns and results in surface cooling. I'll wait.

 

[IanC]

This is distraction, making it difficult to come to the realistic conclusion that water is very reactive to LWIR.

And this assumption has been proven demonstrably wrong in sea water by observed and quantified evidence. You "Believe" without fact. Show me demonstrable evidence that LWIR has any effect on a grey body of water, where its energy is released in the first 10 microns and results in surface cooling. I'll wait.

First off, are you acknowledging that the atmosphere does give off LWIR in all directions, some of which reaches the surface? You have never openly disagreed with SSDD'S weird dimmer switch theory of radiation, so I thought you might be in his camp.

There are three possibilities for the atmospheric LWIR. Absorption, transmission or reflection. Your point is based on LWIR not penetrating sea water so that option is off the table. Absorption or reflection?

Claes Johnson is a slightly loopy physicist over at PSI that has a convoluted theory of harmonic reflection, that the incoming LWIR is not actually absorbed but the same amount of radiation is not emitted from the water. He freely admits that the numbers are identical to classical physics so I don't see the point of adding in an epicycle.

So what was your point exactly? Are you saying that LWIR is absorbed but because the energy is positioned so close to the boundary that it will be re-radiated quickly? So what? That is what thermodynamics is all about, redistribution of energy.

Perhaps you are confused because other processes are going on at the same time. Evaporation removes a lot of energy from the skin of the ocean. High speed (high 'temperature') molecules leave the ocean taking their energy with them. This predominantly happens when the Sun is actively heating the surface. Conduction is also happening at the skin. Air molecules bounce off the surface and either subtract or add to the energy of the skin, depending on the size and direction of the temperature differential between the atmosphere and surface at the boundary.

All these things are happening at the same time. Just because there are many pathways that does not mean that LWIR being absorbed by water doesn't count. It just means it is difficult to separate out and measure directly.

 

[IanC]

BTW, you know I'm no physics major, I don't contend to be. I can read and I can observe. And all I'm asking is if you want me to believe something show the evidence of that something. It can't be that difficult to do, since there are so many consensus stories

You do realize I am a skeptic, right? That I agree with ideas that make sense, disagree with the nonsense, and am agnostic in the areas with too little information?

I have given you overwhelming evidence that CO2 is a warming influence. I am not willing or able to give a precise number for the total warming so far, or the extra amount added with increasing CO2 concentration. I think it is probably in the range of 1C/2xCO2. Most of the prominent skeptics also agree with this. You have to deny the field of physics to deny that CO2 has a warming influence. But there is still lots of room to debate the size of that influence.

 

[jc456]

BTW, you know I'm no physics major, I don't contend to be. I can read and I can observe. And all I'm asking is if you want me to believe something show the evidence of that something. It can't be that difficult to do, since there are so many consensus stories

You do realize I am a skeptic, right? That I agree with ideas that make sense, disagree with the nonsense, and am agnostic in the areas with too little information?

I have given you overwhelming evidence that CO2 is a warming influence. I am not willing or able to give a precise number for the total warming so far, or the extra amount added with increasing CO2 concentration. I think it is probably in the range of 1C/2xCO2. Most of the prominent skeptics also agree with this. You have to deny the field of physics to deny that CO2 has a warming influence. But there is still lots of room to debate the size of that influence.

you have shared many models with me. nothing observed. I even asked you once if CO2 was ever tested in a lab trial where it absorbed and made anything warmer? Nothing that I can remember at the moment.

I know you state you are a warmer, but your logic to me, doesn't fit the skeptic warming mold. You think CO2 warms the planet, so much it adds I think twice as much heat as the incoming rays of the sun? Or something like that from the models you've posted. I've even stated to you that with your thinking of how CO2 interacts with the atmosphere we'd have perpetual motion! I will say one more time that as of my time in this forum now five + years, not one individual has posted one iota of observed evidence of CO2 impacting our temperatures. Not one, and there isn't any observed evidence that man's CO2 does anything or is a main player in the CO2 numbers that exist. I'm still waiting.

I commend you on your efforts, but you've failed to post any observable data to back your theories of CO2 and man CO2 doing anything to temperatures of this planet or any other planet.

 

[IanC]

You think CO2 warms the planet, so much it adds I think twice as much heat as the incoming rays of the sun? Or something like that from the models you've posted. I've even stated to you that with your thinking of how CO2 interacts with the atmosphere we'd have perpetual motion! I will say one more time that as of my time in this forum now five + years, not one individual has posted one iota of observed evidence of CO2 impacting our temperatures.

You don't seem to be capable of catching on to concepts. Should I really bother explaining it all again when you will just ask the same questions next time?

The surface and the atmosphere both have stored energy. At night (no incoming energy from the Sun) they both cool by radiation. The surface feeds energy into the atmosphere and some escapes directly to space through the atmospheric window. The atmosphere radiates its stored energy in all directions, some returns towards the surface. This returned energy balances out some of the radiation loss from the surface therefore the surface doesn't cool as fast as it would if there was no atmosphere. But both are cooling by passive diffusion of energy THAT WAS ALREADY THERE.

The sun actively adds energy to the system. New energy, that gets stored. The surface temperature goes up, chasing the equilibrium temperature where input equals output. This is active heating, not passive redistribution, although that is still happening as well.

You made a comment on energy coming back from the atmosphere being twice the amount being received by the Sun. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of Thermodynamics. There is a two way flow of radiation between the surface and atmosphere. 400w up and 340w down for a net of 60w up. You can't have one without the other, they happen at the same time.