How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[Wuwei]

If I set an object on an energy source at say 100C....i can leave it there till the end of time and it will never get to be more than 100C...Even if I put it in a sealed container with a perfect vacuum around it...it will only reach 100C and then that will be as hot as it ever gets...You wack jobs think that somehow CO2 multiplies energy...it doesn't....you don't add energy..it doesn't work that way....if I have a bottle of water that is 100C and add another bottle of water that is 100C, the temperature doesn't increase to 200C ...it is still going to be 100C..

I totally agree. But you totally missed my point.

You totally agree? Then why do you believe there is a radiative greenhouse effect? You see the box at the bottom of the image...239.7 + 239.7 + sigma T^4?

Now look at the second line...what does it say that T equals? That equation is stating that the temperature is equal to precisely what I just said could not happen above and you agreed totally. There is the mechanism by which your radiative greenhouse effect supposedly works and you just agreed that it doesn't happen...thanks.

This is another example where you don't understand the difference between power and energy.
Your first example starting with, "If I set an object on an energy source at say 100C..."
has no power input like the sun.

Your picture is an example with power input from the sun.
Apples and oranges.
.


.

 

[SSDD]

It is absolutely astounding that you deny

Really? After everything you've seen you're surprised? By the way the person you're speaking to claims to understand the climate better than climate scientists do. He is a complete fool.

Sorry guy....but you are the one who has been fooled...

Obviously you neither read, nor understood anything he has said...

Further up in the post, I said"

"If I set an object on an energy source at say 100C....i can leave it there till the end of time and it will never get to be more than 100C...Even if I put it in a sealed container with a perfect vacuum around it...it will only reach 100C and then that will be as hot as it ever gets...You wack jobs think that somehow CO2 multiplies energy...it doesn't....you don't add energy..it doesn't work that way....if I have a bottle of water that is 100C and add another bottle of water that is 100C, the temperature doesn't increase to 200C ...it is still going to be 100C.."

To which wuwei said:

"I totally agree. But you totally missed my point."

He totally agrees...and that is damned interesting because the radiative greenhouse effect is based on the same thing that we both just stated can not happen...you can't add a bucket of water at 100F to a bucket of water at 100F and expect the temperature to rise a single degree higher than 100C.

And that is true..you can try it yourself with some warm water and a thermometer...

And yet, here is the basis of the greenhouse hypothesis and in turn, man made global warming.

You see the Red arrow pointing down? And the red arrow pointing up? See the explanation of what they represent? Energy emitted by the top layer of the atmosphere and energy emitted by the bottom layer of the atmosphere...see that? Both the same.

Now look at the equation in the box at the bottom of the image...It says that T....T stands for temperature equals the energy indicated by the red arrow plus the energy indicated by the blue arrow....mathematically, they just claimed that if you pour a bucket of water at 100F into an equal amount of water at 100F, that the resulting temperature will be 200F.

Now do I expect for you to understand this? Of course not...but just so you know that your apparent hero of the minute agrees with me regarding what happens to the temperature of a thing, when you combine it with another thing at the same temperature...NOTHING...because temperatures are not additive. The equation which describes the radiative greenhouse effect is claiming that temperatures are additive...that if you add some energy at one temperature to some more energy at the same temperature that the temperature will be the sum of the two....

It doesn't happen..

Show the climate scientists. I'll read about you in the paper.

Climate scientists know all about it...that is how bad they are at math.

 

[SSDD]

For god's sake. Another concept that went over your head. I'm trying to show you the difference between Power and Energy and you go off into a tangent.

Sorry guy...but you are the one who is missing the point

Not only do you not understand power and energy, your tangent is also wrong. A light bulb glows because it is absorbing energy and retaining much of it in a vacuum. If the bulb were broken and the filament were intact and immersed in water it would not retain much of the 17 Watts of continuous energy input would it. With your misunderstanding of the simplest science, no wonder you are such a science denier.

.

You really don't understand even the basics do you? You run that 17 watts through a heavy gage filament and chances are it would barely warm to the touch...no matter how long you ran the current through it...and are you under the impression that the filament retains energy because it is in a vacuum? You think that is why there is a vacuum in most light bulbs? Is that what you think? Geez guy...go learn something..

There is a vacuum in a light bulb because the filament would burn up if there were oxygen in there...not because the vacuum makes it retain energy or anything like that...You could just as easily fill the bulb with any inert gas that would prevent combustion and get the same effect.

Where do you get these idiotic ideas? You certainly don't read them anywhere.....are you just making it up as you go? You constantly get the basics wrong....and because you don't understand the basics, everything you build upon your misunderstanding is wrong.

 

[SSDD]

If I set an object on an energy source at say 100C....i can leave it there till the end of time and it will never get to be more than 100C...Even if I put it in a sealed container with a perfect vacuum around it...it will only reach 100C and then that will be as hot as it ever gets...You wack jobs think that somehow CO2 multiplies energy...it doesn't....you don't add energy..it doesn't work that way....if I have a bottle of water that is 100C and add another bottle of water that is 100C, the temperature doesn't increase to 200C ...it is still going to be 100C..

I totally agree. But you totally missed my point.

You totally agree? Then why do you believe there is a radiative greenhouse effect? You see the box at the bottom of the image...239.7 + 239.7 + sigma T^4?

Now look at the second line...what does it say that T equals? That equation is stating that the temperature is equal to precisely what I just said could not happen above and you agreed totally. There is the mechanism by which your radiative greenhouse effect supposedly works and you just agreed that it doesn't happen...thanks.

This is another example where you don't understand the difference between power and energy.
Your first example starting with, "If I set an object on an energy source at say 100C..."
has no power input like the sun.

Your picture is an example with power input from the sun.
Apples and oranges.
.


.

The graphic shows a doubling of IR from the surface of the earth by CO2...a physical impossibility...just the same as it is impossible to raise the temperature of a jug of water at 100F by adding water at 100F... Radiation from an object can not be doubled and further increase the temperature...

Insofar as temperature goes, both of the equations below say the same thing. Combining 100 degrees with something that is already 100 degrees is not going to change the temperature at all out here in the real world...but in the world of climate science, and their failed models, adding the 100 to an object that is already at 100 will result in a different temperarue...

T = 100 + 100
T = 100

 

[Billy_Bob]

If I set an object on an energy source at say 100C....i can leave it there till the end of time and it will never get to be more than 100C...Even if I put it in a sealed container with a perfect vacuum around it...it will only reach 100C and then that will be as hot as it ever gets...You wack jobs think that somehow CO2 multiplies energy...it doesn't....you don't add energy..it doesn't work that way....if I have a bottle of water that is 100C and add another bottle of water that is 100C, the temperature doesn't increase to 200C ...it is still going to be 100C..

I totally agree. But you totally missed my point.

You totally agree? Then why do you believe there is a radiative greenhouse effect? You see the box at the bottom of the image...239.7 + 239.7 + sigma T^4?

Now look at the second line...what does it say that T equals? That equation is stating that the temperature is equal to precisely what I just said could not happen above and you agreed totally. There is the mechanism by which your radiative greenhouse effect supposedly works and you just agreed that it doesn't happen...thanks.

This is another example where you don't understand the difference between power and energy.
Your first example starting with, "If I set an object on an energy source at say 100C..."
has no power input like the sun.

Your picture is an example with power input from the sun.
Apples and oranges.
.


.

The graphic shows a doubling of IR from the surface of the earth by CO2...a physical impossibility...just the same as it is impossible to raise the temperature of a jug of water at 100F by adding water at 100F... Radiation from an object can not be doubled and further increase the temperature...

Insofar as temperature goes, both of the equations below say the same thing. Combining 100 degrees with something that is already 100 degrees is not going to change the temperature at all out here in the real world...but in the world of climate science, and their failed models, adding the 100 to an object that is already at 100 will result in a different temperarue...

T = 100 + 100
T = 100

Total atmospheric radiation is about 360 w/m^2. They are double counting radiation emitted in the atmosphere. This is why thier results are always to high..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If I set an object on an energy source at say 100C....i can leave it there till the end of time and it will never get to be more than 100C...Even if I put it in a sealed container with a perfect vacuum around it...it will only reach 100C and then that will be as hot as it ever gets...You wack jobs think that somehow CO2 multiplies energy...it doesn't....you don't add energy..it doesn't work that way....if I have a bottle of water that is 100C and add another bottle of water that is 100C, the temperature doesn't increase to 200C ...it is still going to be 100C..

I totally agree. But you totally missed my point.

You totally agree? Then why do you believe there is a radiative greenhouse effect? You see the box at the bottom of the image...239.7 + 239.7 + sigma T^4?

Now look at the second line...what does it say that T equals? That equation is stating that the temperature is equal to precisely what I just said could not happen above and you agreed totally. There is the mechanism by which your radiative greenhouse effect supposedly works and you just agreed that it doesn't happen...thanks.

This is another example where you don't understand the difference between power and energy.
Your first example starting with, "If I set an object on an energy source at say 100C..."
has no power input like the sun.

Your picture is an example with power input from the sun.
Apples and oranges.
.


.

The graphic shows a doubling of IR from the surface of the earth by CO2...a physical impossibility...just the same as it is impossible to raise the temperature of a jug of water at 100F by adding water at 100F... Radiation from an object can not be doubled and further increase the temperature...

Insofar as temperature goes, both of the equations below say the same thing. Combining 100 degrees with something that is already 100 degrees is not going to change the temperature at all out here in the real world...but in the world of climate science, and their failed models, adding the 100 to an object that is already at 100 will result in a different temperarue...

T = 100 + 100
T = 100

Total atmospheric radiation is about 360 w/m^2. They are double counting radiation emitted in the atmosphere. This is why thier results are always to high..

View attachment 276371

They are double counting radiation emitted in the atmosphere.

How many watts reach the surface from the Sun?
How many watts does the surface emit?

 

[Wuwei]

You really don't understand even the basics do you? You run that 17 watts through a heavy gage filament and chances are it would barely warm to the touch...no matter how long you ran the current through it...and are you under the impression that the filament retains energy because it is in a vacuum? You think that is why there is a vacuum in most light bulbs? Is that what you think? Geez guy...go learn something..

There is a vacuum in a light bulb because the filament would burn up if there were oxygen in there...not because the vacuum makes it retain energy or anything like that...You could just as easily fill the bulb with any inert gas that would prevent combustion and get the same effect.

So what. That's elementary. Of course a larger filament would not get as hot. You still missed the point -- there is a difference between energy and power.

.

 

[Wuwei]

The graphic shows a doubling of IR from the surface of the earth by CO2...a physical impossibility...just the same as it is impossible to raise the temperature of a jug of water at 100F by adding water at 100F... Radiation from an object can not be doubled and further increase the temperature...

Insofar as temperature goes, both of the equations below say the same thing. Combining 100 degrees with something that is already 100 degrees is not going to change the temperature at all out here in the real world...but in the world of climate science, and their failed models, adding the 100 to an object that is already at 100 will result in a different temperarue...

T = 100 + 100
T = 100

Arrrggg. Now you are confusing power with temperature!
You think that diagram means the temperature is doubling?

Temperature is not doubling!

The equation in that diagram is the final step of the solution of two simultaneous equations with two unknowns. The two numbers are powers, not temperatures doubling. There are many sites that show how that is done, for example ....

One-Layer Energy Balance Model | METEO 469: From Meteorology to Mitigation: Understanding Global Warming

If you don't understand it let me know and I will simplify it for you.

.

 

[SSDD]

You really don't understand even the basics do you? You run that 17 watts through a heavy gage filament and chances are it would barely warm to the touch...no matter how long you ran the current through it...and are you under the impression that the filament retains energy because it is in a vacuum? You think that is why there is a vacuum in most light bulbs? Is that what you think? Geez guy...go learn something..

There is a vacuum in a light bulb because the filament would burn up if there were oxygen in there...not because the vacuum makes it retain energy or anything like that...You could just as easily fill the bulb with any inert gas that would prevent combustion and get the same effect.

So what. That's elementary. Of course a larger filament would not get as hot. You still missed the point -- there is a difference between energy and power.

.

So what? Energy is how much work you do...power is how quickly you can get it done. That isn't helping your case in trying to provet that light bulb filaments are retaining energy because they are in a vacuum...Where do you get bullshit like that?

It is a prime example of how badly you misunderstand the basics.

 

[SSDD]

The graphic shows a doubling of IR from the surface of the earth by CO2...a physical impossibility...just the same as it is impossible to raise the temperature of a jug of water at 100F by adding water at 100F... Radiation from an object can not be doubled and further increase the temperature...

Insofar as temperature goes, both of the equations below say the same thing. Combining 100 degrees with something that is already 100 degrees is not going to change the temperature at all out here in the real world...but in the world of climate science, and their failed models, adding the 100 to an object that is already at 100 will result in a different temperarue...

T = 100 + 100
T = 100

Arrrggg. Now you are confusing power with temperature!
You think that diagram means the temperature is doubling?

Not at all...only the energy is doubling in that equation... And does the equation not say that T= (239.7 + 239.7)..........?

Are you not doubling infrared radiation that originated in the same place?

Funny you suggest that I look to you for an explanation of an unphysical, unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model that is the basis of the abject failure of climate models... If I need an explanation for magic...I will seek out a magician...not some goob who simply makes crap up as he goes and doesn't even grasp how and why a light bulb works..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The graphic shows a doubling of IR from the surface of the earth by CO2...a physical impossibility...just the same as it is impossible to raise the temperature of a jug of water at 100F by adding water at 100F... Radiation from an object can not be doubled and further increase the temperature...

Insofar as temperature goes, both of the equations below say the same thing. Combining 100 degrees with something that is already 100 degrees is not going to change the temperature at all out here in the real world...but in the world of climate science, and their failed models, adding the 100 to an object that is already at 100 will result in a different temperarue...

T = 100 + 100
T = 100

Arrrggg. Now you are confusing power with temperature!
You think that diagram means the temperature is doubling?

Not at all...only the energy is doubling in that equation... And does the equation not say that T= (239.7 + 239.7)..........?

Are you not doubling infrared radiation that originated in the same place?

Funny you suggest that I look to you for an explanation of an unphysical, unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model that is the basis of the abject failure of climate models... If I need an explanation for magic...I will seek out a magician...not some goob who simply makes crap up as he goes and doesn't even grasp how and why a light bulb works..

How many watts reach the surface from the Sun?
How many watts does the surface emit?

 

[Wuwei]

Funny you suggest that I look to you for an explanation of an unphysical, unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model that is the basis of the abject failure of climate models... If I need an explanation for magic...I will seek out a magician...not some goob who simply makes crap up as he goes and doesn't even grasp how and why a light bulb works..

And a pleasant good morning to you too.

It's not magic. It is the application of the SB equation used twice. From the diagram you posted,

P = Radiated power, sun to earth
P = Aεơ(Tₑ⁴ - Tₐ⁴) Radiated power, earth to atmosphere
P = Aεơ(Tₐ⁴ - Tₛ⁴) Radiated power, atmosphere to space
(At equilibrium all radiated powers are up toward space and must be equal.)

Your diagram assumes
area A = 1 m²
and ε = 1
Also the temperature of space is assumed to be zero

The two equations simply become:
P = ơ(Tₑ⁴ - Tₐ⁴) Radiated power, earth to atmosphere
P = ơ(Tₐ⁴ - 0) Radiated power, atmosphere to space

Add the two equations:
P+P = ơ(Tₑ⁴)

Tₑ⁴ = 2P/ơ => Tₑ = 303 ⁰K

These last two equations are identical to those in your diagram. That is how it is derived. You will notice that the second temperature terms in both SB equations are always smaller than the first, just as you like it. You don't need to assume back radiation although it is implicit.

Note that the fourth root of the middle terms in your last equation should be used but was omitted. No doubt a simple typo by the author. The diagram is a "toy" example of a "slab" atmosphere and isn't meant to accurately calculate the earth temperature. However it is only a few degrees off.

.

 

[SSDD]

It's not magic. It is the application of the SB equation used twice. From the diagram you posted,
.

And therein lies the error which brings about the inevitable failure of climate models.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The graphic shows a doubling of IR from the surface of the earth by CO2...a physical impossibility...just the same as it is impossible to raise the temperature of a jug of water at 100F by adding water at 100F... Radiation from an object can not be doubled and further increase the temperature...

Insofar as temperature goes, both of the equations below say the same thing. Combining 100 degrees with something that is already 100 degrees is not going to change the temperature at all out here in the real world...but in the world of climate science, and their failed models, adding the 100 to an object that is already at 100 will result in a different temperarue...

T = 100 + 100
T = 100

Arrrggg. Now you are confusing power with temperature!
You think that diagram means the temperature is doubling?

Not at all...only the energy is doubling in that equation... And does the equation not say that T= (239.7 + 239.7)..........?

Are you not doubling infrared radiation that originated in the same place?

Funny you suggest that I look to you for an explanation of an unphysical, unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model that is the basis of the abject failure of climate models... If I need an explanation for magic...I will seek out a magician...not some goob who simply makes crap up as he goes and doesn't even grasp how and why a light bulb works..

How many watts reach the surface from the Sun?
How many watts does the surface emit?

The earths surface radiates about 360W/m^2... The equation tells they think that number is closer to 470W/m^2. The extra 110W/m^2 is supposed to be from the self reinforcing loop (AKA; mid tropospheric hot spot) which doesn't exist.

The EREB Satellite measurements tell us that as down-welling solar radiation increases so does the output of the earth in the LWIR bands.

The slope of the empirically measured energy shows that as DWSR increases the LWIR output increases as well. In the model outputs the slope is one of holding energy in the atmosphere, which is not occurring.

Graph Source: Dr. David Evans

 

[deanrd]

Trump is working towards adding more methane into the environment. Methane is an 80 times worse greenhouse gas than any other greenhouse gas. It’s like Republicans want to destroy the world.

Is that it? If we can’t have a white world then we destroy it?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Trump is working towards adding more methane into the environment. Methane is an 80 times worse greenhouse gas than any other greenhouse gas. It’s like Republicans want to destroy the world.

Is that it? If we can’t have a white world then we destroy it?

What Trump is proposing is less than 1/8 of naturally occurring methane over 50 years... Your an idiot as methane's half life is just 30 days... So your fears are unjustified..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Trump is working towards adding more methane into the environment. Methane is an 80 times worse greenhouse gas than any other greenhouse gas. It’s like Republicans want to destroy the world.

Is that it? If we can’t have a white world then we destroy it?

More nukes means less methane.

 

[Wuwei]

It's not magic. It is the application of the SB equation used twice. From the diagram you posted,
.

And therein lies the error which brings about the inevitable failure of climate models.

Exactly what is the error that lies therein?

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's not magic. It is the application of the SB equation used twice. From the diagram you posted,
.

And therein lies the error which brings about the inevitable failure of climate models.

Exactly what is the error that lies therein?

.

It doesn't take into account smart photons or dimmer switches.

 

[beautress]

Trump is working towards adding more methane into the environment. Methane is an 80 times worse greenhouse gas than any other greenhouse gas. It’s like Republicans want to destroy the world.

Is that it? If we can’t have a white world then we destroy it?

Congratulations. You have just received the most misleading post of August, 2019 award. You have earned yourself a 1-in-12 chance to receive the Dummox of the Year award on April 1, 2020.