Evidence supporting AGW

[mamooth]

nice hatchet job on Brooks. I wonder if the real story actually confirms what you say? every time I chase down one of your red herrings it usually says the opposite.

Given you won't be able to show an example, that's obviously sour grapes on your parts. If you don't want it pointed out your sources tend to be nuts, don't use nutty sources.

AIDS denier, EA games consultant, anything else you guys would like to add? I wonder what his CV reads like? hahahahaha

The signatures on this "questioning the hypothesis that HIV causes Aids" petition clearly include one "Dean M Brooks. Engineering Physicist, founder of Ekaros Analytical, Vancouver, Canada".

HIV AIDS Rethinkers

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So far, no experiments posted by the AGWCult

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course V changes when you raise T. You clearly aren't understanding. No surprise there. Here...step by step....P and V are inversely proportional...know what that means? Increase P get a decrease in V...increase V get a decrease in P. If you want to increase P or V without reducing the other, you must A) increase (n) B) Increase R, or C) Increase T...the product of rRT will then increase to equal the increased product of PV.....with me so far?

So far, all good.

The AGW hypothesis claims increased greenhouse gasses cause T to increase, which results in an increase in V in order to both sides of the equation balanced....As you said, increase T and V increases. That is apparently where you stopped thinking.....the problem begins with that increase in V which causes a reduction in the density of the atmosphere (r) which must reduce the product of nRT. Get that? The two sides of the equation must balance.

PV = nRT

T went up, so V went up. It balances just fine. Density can change, but there's no density term in the ideal gas law. P doesn't change, as we'll discuss below.

In the real world, a reduction in (r) will result in a reduction of P also because less mass in the atmosphere will result in less pressure if gravity remains the same....is gravity changing?

In the real world, the taller air column balances the lower density, keeping pressure the same.

We know from direct measurement that P is not, in fact changing at the surface even though the density of the whole atmosphere changes when V changes. Still with me?...because we know that P isn't changing at the surface, we can't balance the equation with a reduction in P that results from the reduction of (n).

Again, there's no density term in PV = nRT. V went up, T went up, everything else in the ideal gas law equation stayed the same. It balances just fine.

I'll also note you're torturing the ideal gas law, which is derived by starting with the assumption of a system with the same conditions throughout. It's not correct to try to apply the ideal gas law across systems with gravitational or pressure gradients, so the whole discussion is really moot.

Are there any laws of physics he understands?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

SSDD- you are making a simple mistake by not realising that potential energy and kinetic energy are easily transferable in any atmosphere. That is what explains the thermal gradients here and on other planets. That does not disprove the small changes at the surface that could be caused in part by the CO2 greenhouse effect.

Energy in matches energy out to a very fine degree but there are many possible values along the pathway. That is why it is nonsense when you claim Venus is radiating 16000w from a 135w input. The heatsinks make the surface hot but the radiation does not escape, except for the 135w.

The greenhouse effect, as described by climate science requires that energy be absorbed by the surface and radiated out....approximately 135 watts per square meter reach the surface of venus....the output of venus is in excess of 16,000 watts...135 in, 16,000 out due to the magic of the greenhouse effect.

approximately 135 watts per square meter reach the surface of venus

Why so little? Source?

 

[IanC]

Venus is very cloudy.

 

[IanC]

Mamooth- which strawmen are you talking about?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Venus is very cloudy.

I guess SSDD feels energy absorbed by clouds doesn't count for input/output calculations.

 

[saveliberty]

Faithers figure if their pop gets warm in the bottle outside, it is due to the CO2.

 

[IanC]

It's hard to tell what SSDD thinks. But he sure stubborn.

 

[SSDD]

I wish there was something that could be said that would break posters like SSDD and crick out of their ruts but I fear that is impossible.

Both of them hold onto a small piece of the puzzle and say it is the only piece that is important.

Science is made up of individual principles that are seldom seen in a pure form in reality because many other factors are acting at the same time.

It is like crick saying a person making 10k a year will have 100k in the bank after 10 years. Or SSDD saying a business cannot have a million dollars in expenses and still break even because he refuses to acknowledge receipts.

When did I ever say anything like that?

 

[SSDD]

PV = nRT

T went up, so V went up. It balances just fine. Density can change, but there's no density term in the ideal gas law. P doesn't change, as we'll discuss below.

(n) is the total atmospheric mass...(n) is density by definition.

the real world, the taller air column balances the lower density, keeping pressure the same.

Did I not say that P is not changing? It's clear that you are not getting this....you keep agreeing but don't like the implications, so you disagree. P is not changing

, there's no density term in PV = nRT. V went up, T went up, everything else in the ideal gas law equation stayed the same. It balances just fine.

Again, (n) is the total atmospheric mass...it is a density term by definition....the equation does not balance....go back to the beginning with at least a rudimentary understanding that (n) is in fact a density term and try again.

As to torturing anything...look at the greenhouse gas hypothesis...it assumes CO2 to be a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...do you think CO2 is a well mixed gas?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD- you are making a simple mistake by not realising that potential energy and kinetic energy are easily transferable in any atmosphere. That is what explains the thermal gradients here and on other planets. That does not disprove the small changes at the surface that could be caused in part by the CO2 greenhouse effect.

Energy in matches energy out to a very fine degree but there are many possible values along the pathway. That is why it is nonsense when you claim Venus is radiating 16000w from a 135w input. The heatsinks make the surface hot but the radiation does not escape, except for the 135w.

The greenhouse effect, as described by climate science requires that energy be absorbed by the surface and radiated out....approximately 135 watts per square meter reach the surface of venus....the output of venus is in excess of 16,000 watts...135 in, 16,000 out due to the magic of the greenhouse effect.

approximately 135 watts per square meter reach the surface of venus

Why so little? Source?

NASA...there are lots of clouds on venus....contrary to what you might think...sunlight doesn't penetrate those clouds so easily....there are, in fact 135 watts per square meter reaching the surface on venus to power a greenhouse effect that has a net output of more than 16,000 wm/2. ...if you believe in magic, that is.

 

[SSDD]

Venus is very cloudy.

I guess SSDD feels energy absorbed by clouds doesn't count for input/output calculations.

Again, I posted precisely how climate science defines the greenhouse effect....the greenhouse effect is powered by solar energy reaching the surface...and being reradiated as LW by the surface....by the way...which gasses in the atmosphere of venus are absorbing all that short wave....Does CO2 absorb shortwave on venus?

 

[Crick]

You still seem to be claiming that the atmosphere of Venus radiates 16kw/m2 up but almost nothing down. Care to explain?

 

[SSDD]

You still seem to be claiming that the atmosphere of Venus radiates 16kw/m2 up but almost nothing down. Care to explain?

Sure..as soon as you explain how 135 watts gets converted to 16k in the first place since it clearly isn't due to any greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

SSDD- you are making a simple mistake by not realising that potential energy and kinetic energy are easily transferable in any atmosphere. That is what explains the thermal gradients here and on other planets. That does not disprove the small changes at the surface that could be caused in part by the CO2 greenhouse effect.

Energy in matches energy out to a very fine degree but there are many possible values along the pathway. That is why it is nonsense when you claim Venus is radiating 16000w from a 135w input. The heatsinks make the surface hot but the radiation does not escape, except for the 135w.

The greenhouse effect, as described by climate science requires that energy be absorbed by the surface and radiated out....approximately 135 watts per square meter reach the surface of venus....the output of venus is in excess of 16,000 watts...135 in, 16,000 out due to the magic of the greenhouse effect.

approximately 135 watts per square meter reach the surface of venus

Why so little? Source?

NASA...there are lots of clouds on venus....contrary to what you might think...sunlight doesn't penetrate those clouds so easily....there are, in fact 135 watts per square meter reaching the surface on venus to power a greenhouse effect that has a net output of more than 16,000 wm/2. ...if you believe in magic, that is.

Why would you only compare energy reaching the surface with all the energy being radiated away?
It sounds like you're confused about this as well.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You still seem to be claiming that the atmosphere of Venus radiates 16kw/m2 up but almost nothing down. Care to explain?

Sure..as soon as you explain how 135 watts gets converted to 16k in the first place since it clearly isn't due to any greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

Any luck finding the flaw in the Stefan Boltzmann Law, or are you still clinging to your 2nd Law fallacy?

 

[SSDD]

You still seem to be claiming that the atmosphere of Venus radiates 16kw/m2 up but almost nothing down. Care to explain?

Sure..as soon as you explain how 135 watts gets converted to 16k in the first place since it clearly isn't due to any greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

Any luck finding the flaw in the Stefan Boltzmann Law, or are you still clinging to your 2nd Law fallacy?

Pressure is king on venus...if our atmosphere weighed 100 times more than it does even with the same proportions of gas...it would be hot as hell here as well...pressure...not some pie in the sky politically motivated non physical, unobservable, unmeasurable, unquantifiable greenhouse effect.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You still seem to be claiming that the atmosphere of Venus radiates 16kw/m2 up but almost nothing down. Care to explain?

Sure..as soon as you explain how 135 watts gets converted to 16k in the first place since it clearly isn't due to any greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

Any luck finding the flaw in the Stefan Boltzmann Law, or are you still clinging to your 2nd Law fallacy?

Pressure is king on venus...if our atmosphere weighed 100 times more than it does even with the same proportions of gas...it would be hot as hell here as well...pressure...not some pie in the sky politically motivated non physical, unobservable, unmeasurable, unquantifiable greenhouse effect.

The ideal gas law works in a sealed container.
Trying to prove a similar precise ratio in an atmospheric environment is silly.

No luck finding a flaw in the Stefan Boltzmann Law? Ready to admit your long-running error?

 

[IanC]

SSDD - I am one who has said from the beginning that pressure is a factor in surface temperature. But it is not the only factor. This planet is in near equilibrium so pressure is no longer the important influence in small changes. But the escape of surface radiation is. How warm the atmosphere is, and how opaque it is to the relevant wavelengths is more important than the pressure.

If the 16kW on Venus were free to escape then the surface there would quickly cool.likewise with earth. CO2 interferes with the escape of radiation here but it is only one factor out of many so its effect is small but real.