how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[Foxfyre]

It's explained at the bottom of each of my posts.

But your comment strongly suggested that you still don't have a clue what your cut and pasted exerpt actually means. You see cut and paste and demontrated knowledge are not the same thing. A great many of your posts, however, have been a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I could be tempted to use you as a classic example for illustration purposes.

Unlike cultists, I've never suffered from the delusion that my knowledge is unique. In fact the vast majority of it is "copied and pasted" into my brain from those who taught or reported it. My tag line is copied and pasted as well as it said, in a way that appealed to me, the essence of cult behavior.

Feel free to use me as an example of anything you want. Your words reflect on you, not me.

In the meantime, do you have anything to add to the discussion here?

If you don't want to discuss the Dunning-Kruger effect, then don't bring it up. I wasn't the one to bring it up, and my comment was in direct response to your use of it.

It adds to the discussion here, however, when it becomes abundantly clear that some who think they know a lot about something obviously don't. It is less applicable to the cut and paste, blow as much smoke as you can to obfusicate and confuse crowd, who WANT people to think they're smart and educated when it is obvious they couldn't explain any of this stuff in their own words if their lives depended on it.

Of course there is also the possibility of trollism that doesn't apply to either. Those are the cut and paste of huge quantities of irrelevent scientific looking data to prevent any serious discussion of the topic from taking place.

 

[PMZ]

[
Only one photon means only one direction, at least until it interacts with matter again.

Only one stone means only one direction as well. Do you think that if I drop enough stones, that statistically, at some point, the force of gravity will "forget" to make the stone fall and will instead allow it to climb? Which other forces of nature do you believe sometimes "forget" to determine the relationships between phenomena?

In AGW it is often only the up/down component discussed but radiative processes happen in all direction equally.

Prove that. If you can, then you can prove the statement of the Second Law is not correct. That's the problem. You believe it fervently...I have no doubt of that. But Ian, there is no proof...not one single observation in the history of science supports your belief.

Do you realize that you are the only one here believing that the SLoT, correctly stated, is being violated by GHG back radiation?

The fact that GHG backradiation can be, and has been, precisely measured, makes it indisputable. The fact that the SLoT is correct when it's properly stated, is indisputable.

That's why what you assert is regarded as your lack of understanding, not a scientific breakthrough.

 

[PMZ]

But your comment strongly suggested that you still don't have a clue what your cut and pasted exerpt actually means. You see cut and paste and demontrated knowledge are not the same thing. A great many of your posts, however, have been a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I could be tempted to use you as a classic example for illustration purposes.

Unlike cultists, I've never suffered from the delusion that my knowledge is unique. In fact the vast majority of it is "copied and pasted" into my brain from those who taught or reported it. My tag line is copied and pasted as well as it said, in a way that appealed to me, the essence of cult behavior.

Feel free to use me as an example of anything you want. Your words reflect on you, not me.

In the meantime, do you have anything to add to the discussion here?

If you don't want to discuss the Dunning-Kruger effect, then don't bring it up. I wasn't the one to bring it up, and my comment was in direct response to your use of it.

It adds to the discussion here, however, when it becomes abundantly clear that some who think they know a lot about something obviously don't. It is less applicable to the cut and paste, blow as much smoke as you can to obfusicate and confuse crowd, who WANT people to think they're smart and educated when it is obvious they couldn't explain any of this stuff in their own words if their lives depended on it.

Of course there is also the possibility of trollism that doesn't apply to either. Those are the cut and paste of huge quantities of irrelevent scientific looking data to prevent any serious discussion of the topic from taking place.

If you want to ask a specific question about anything that I've asserted here, I would be glad to respond with proof. I don't claim things in the absence of proof.

Everybody "WANT(s) people to think they're smart and educated". Some are. Some are illustrating the Dunning-Kruger effect.

If you are capable of formulating a specific question on what I've asserted, please do it. If not, just say so.

 

[PMZ]

It's explained at the bottom of each of my posts.

But your comment strongly suggested that you still don't have a clue what your cut and pasted exerpt actually means. You see cut and paste and demontrated knowledge are not the same thing. A great many of your posts, however, have been a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I could be tempted to use you as a classic example for illustration purposes.

The problem with victims of Dunning-Kruger is that they don't realise that they are victims. For all of his cut and paste "scholarship" he finds that he must completely avoid any discussion of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and how it applies to the greenhouse effect hypothesis. That topic, and relationship should be easy for a truely educated person, but he must avoid it like the plague because the cult sites where he gets his cut and paste also avoid such fundamental issues because the law speaks directly to the greenhouse effect hypothesis as it is stated.

One of the many benefits of education is to be able to distinguish between other educated people and victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect. It shows up not just in what they know but how they think, how they question, their ability to research. Their relationship with knowledge. Their objectivity.

That's why the future of our democracy is absolutely connected to the future of our education.

An informed electorate must learn to separate the flyshit from the pepper.

 

[SSDD]

Do you realize that you are the only one here believing that the SLoT, correctly stated, is being violated by GHG back radiation?

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Except in rare, and short lived instances of temperature inversion where the atmosphere is, in fact, warmer than the surface of the earth, describe how backradiation might happen when the Second Law says explicitly that it IS NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish the task.

The fact that GHG backradiation can be, and has been, precisely measured, makes it indisputable. The fact that the SLoT is correct when it's properly stated, is indisputable.

I suggest that you take some time to actually learn about the devices that have supposedly precisely measured backradiation. Those devices which are supposed to have measured backradiation are cooled to a temperature that is much lower than the atmosphere they are measuring. The AIRS instrument is a good example of an instrument that has supposedly been used to precisely measure backradiation. They all have cooling modules that cool the focal plane to a temperature below -18 degrees F.

Since the instrument is cooler than the atmosphere, it isn't backradiation that they are measuring at all, but the perfectly predictable radiation exchange from a warmer atmosphere to a cooler instrument.

Listen closely...this is important....NO MEASUREMENT OF BACKRADIATION HAS EVER BEEN MADE AT AMBIENT TEMPERATURE. Any such measurement of energy exchange between a cooler atmosphere and a warmer surface of the earth would invalidate the statement of the Second law as such an exchange would require that energy move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.

That's why what you assert is regarded as your lack of understanding, not a scientific breakthrough.

I am afraid that it is you who has been hoodwinked. It is easy to use instrumentation and the data gathered to fool those who aren't well educated enough to know what is being measured. When the Second Law says that it is not possible for energy to move from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth, only an undecuated rube, or an educated rube who is willing to decieved for political reasons would believe that actual measurements of a phenomenon that the Second Law explicitly says can not happen were being made.

If you are referring to the comical claim that backradiation has been measured via pyrgeometer, here is a link to a specific discussion complete with all the math on how to fool yourself with one by a professor of applied mathematics at the Royal
Institute of Technology in Stockholm.

Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: How to Fool Yourself with a Pyrgeometer

Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: BIG BLUFF: Pyrgeometer DLR as Bolometer OLR

 

[PMZ]

One of the observations that reveals the limitations of the denial cult is that they don't know what questions to ask.

There are really only two.

The problem is not AGW. That's a scientific certainty. Approximately 1 degree C per effective doubling of GHG concentration.

The real question is what are the consequences of that?

The currently most valid answer is that it will launch positive feedbacks such as melting ice which will 1) reduce the reflectivity and increase the absorption of solar shortwave. 2) release CO2 presently sequestered in permafrost, increasing GHG concentration.

That will up the ante to a warming of between 3 and 12 degrees C of average long term climatic temperature.

Leading to hypothetically: costly impacts on our civilization like sea level rise into our port cities, relocation of necessary precipitation to away from our farmlands and population centers, and increase in the severity and frequency of extreme weather impacts like hurricanes and tornadoes.

Anybody want to debate those issues?

 

[SSDD]

One of the many benefits of education is to be able to distinguish between other educated people and victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect. It shows up not just in what they know but how they think, how they question, their ability to research. Their relationship with knowledge. Their objectivity.

That's why the future of our democracy is absolutely connected to the future of our education.

An informed electorate must learn to separate the flyshit from the pepper.

It is more than obvious that you are not educated as evidenced by the fact that you are unable to discuss this, or any other topic in your own words. Excessive use of cut and paste are the first signs of a lack of education. The primary benefit of education is to allow one to contemplate on a topic and actually discuss it in real time from the contents of one's mind. Those who find that they must cut and paste do so because they lack the education required to actually discuss the topic. One of us lives by cut and paste, which does not involve any actual discussion of the science. Cut and paste simply assumes that the science is correct and is hurled against the wall in the hopes that some of it will stick.

One of us prefers to discuss the topic and get down to the nuts and bolts of the science to determine whether the excessive cut and paste is founded on sound science or not. All the pretty graphs, and equations on earth mean nothing if they are founded on a hypothesis that is in oppostion to a fundamental physical law.

People who are truely educated tend not to flount their education or attempt to use it as a weapon...clearly you have spent little if any time on a college campus interacting with highly educated people. Those who are genuinely educated work hard to impart their knowledge in terms that anyone can understand and will go to whatever lengths necessary to reach understanding. Those who lack any real education...or perhaps I should say, lack any real understanding of the material they are working with tend to wield essentially useless information as a weapon in an attempt to subdue those they view as advesaries.

And that's another indication of a lack of education or true understanding, or both...viewing those who disagree with you as advesaries. That view is the result of your own lack of self confidence and a lack of the emotional maturity to view disagreement as a learning opportunity.

I am perfectly willing to be convinced that I am wrong. All you have to do is prove it. If the statement of the Second Law is incorrect and it is possible for energy to move from a high entropy state to a low entropy state, all you need do is prove it, and in doing so, gain a million dollar Nobel for yourself in the process.

Claiming education when everyting you do indicates a lack of it is just sad.

So again, what does the statement of the Second Law say regarding the movement of energy from a high entropy state to a lower entropy state and how does that statement apply to the greenhouse effect hypothesis as it is stated?

Are you educated or not?

 

[PMZ]

Do you realize that you are the only one here believing that the SLoT, correctly stated, is being violated by GHG back radiation?

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Except in rare, and short lived instances of temperature inversion where the atmosphere is, in fact, warmer than the surface of the earth, describe how backradiation might happen when the Second Law says explicitly that it IS NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish the task.

The fact that GHG backradiation can be, and has been, precisely measured, makes it indisputable. The fact that the SLoT is correct when it's properly stated, is indisputable.

I suggest that you take some time to actually learn about the devices that have supposedly precisely measured backradiation. Those devices which are supposed to have measured backradiation are cooled to a temperature that is much lower than the atmosphere they are measuring. The AIRS instrument is a good example of an instrument that has supposedly been used to precisely measure backradiation. They all have cooling modules that cool the focal plane to a temperature below -18 degrees F.

Since the instrument is cooler than the atmosphere, it isn't backradiation that they are measuring at all, but the perfectly predictable radiation exchange from a warmer atmosphere to a cooler instrument.

Listen closely...this is important....NO MEASUREMENT OF BACKRADIATION HAS EVER BEEN MADE AT AMBIENT TEMPERATURE. Any such measurement of energy exchange between a cooler atmosphere and a warmer surface of the earth would invalidate the statement of the Second law as such an exchange would require that energy move from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state.

That's why what you assert is regarded as your lack of understanding, not a scientific breakthrough.

I am afraid that it is you who has been hoodwinked. It is easy to use instrumentation and the data gathered to fool those who aren't well educated enough to know what is being measured. When the Second Law says that it is not possible for energy to move from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth, only an undecuated rube, or an educated rube who is willing to decieved for political reasons would believe that actual measurements of a phenomenon that the Second Law explicitly says can not happen were being made.

If you are referring to the comical claim that backradiation has been measured via pyrgeometer, here is a link to a specific discussion complete with all the math on how to fool yourself with one by a professor of applied mathematics at the Royal
Institute of Technology in Stockholm.

Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: How to Fool Yourself with a Pyrgeometer

Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: BIG BLUFF: Pyrgeometer DLR as Bolometer OLR

"

A simple replicable 200+ year old experiment proving what everybody but you knows. That you are simply wrong.

http://www2.ups.edu/faculty/jcevans/Pictet's experiment.pdf

 

[Foxfyre]

It's explained at the bottom of each of my posts.

But your comment strongly suggested that you still don't have a clue what your cut and pasted exerpt actually means. You see cut and paste and demontrated knowledge are not the same thing. A great many of your posts, however, have been a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I could be tempted to use you as a classic example for illustration purposes.

The problem with victims of Dunning-Kruger is that they don't realise that they are victims. For all of his cut and paste "scholarship" he finds that he must completely avoid any discussion of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and how it applies to the greenhouse effect hypothesis. That topic, and relationship should be easy for a truely educated person, but he must avoid it like the plague because the cult sites where he gets his cut and paste also avoid such fundamental issues because the law speaks directly to the greenhouse effect hypothesis as it is stated.

But technically, those afflicted with Dunning-Kruger syndrome actually believe they are smarter, better, more capable than their opponent. The one who is totally stupid but wants others to believe he is smart isn't exhibiting Dunning-Kruger but instead is exhibiting a pathetic desire to impress.

And the troll simply amuses himself throwing out random stuff and doesn't even read what he cuts and pastes. He enjoys watching others jump through the hoops he puts out there.

 

[SSDD]

The problem is not AGW. That's a scientific certainty. Approximately 1 degree C per effective doubling of GHG concentration.

The fact that you believe AGW is a scientific certainty when there doesn't exist a single scrap of empirical evidence proves a increased temperature is a causal effect of increased atmospheric CO2 is more evidence that you lack any real education. You are a church member repeating the dogma.

The currently most valid answer is that it will launch positive feedbacks such as melting ice which will 1) reduce the reflectivity and increase the absorption of solar shortwave. 2) release CO2 presently sequestered in permafrost increasing GHG concentration.

Why is that the most valid answer when we know from the past, that atmospheric concentrations were orders of magnitude greater than they are today no such chain reaction of positive feedbacks and consequent runaway warming effect took place?

That will up the ante to a warming of between 3 and 12 degrees C of average long term climatic temperature.

Since we know that for most of earth's history, it has been considerably warmer than the present, why do you assume that we are somehow causing the warming? The rate of temperature increase certainly isn't unprecedented...and the temperature itself certainly isn't unprecedented...compared to most of earth history, the present atmosphere is postively starved for CO2. The question is what proof is there that man's meager contribution (not even enough to overcome the natural variation from year to year) is causing any warming at all? Actual proof mind you, not mere corelation which isn't proof of anything.

 

[westwall]

But your comment strongly suggested that you still don't have a clue what your cut and pasted exerpt actually means. You see cut and paste and demontrated knowledge are not the same thing. A great many of your posts, however, have been a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I could be tempted to use you as a classic example for illustration purposes.

The problem with victims of Dunning-Kruger is that they don't realise that they are victims. For all of his cut and paste "scholarship" he finds that he must completely avoid any discussion of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and how it applies to the greenhouse effect hypothesis. That topic, and relationship should be easy for a truely educated person, but he must avoid it like the plague because the cult sites where he gets his cut and paste also avoid such fundamental issues because the law speaks directly to the greenhouse effect hypothesis as it is stated.

One of the many benefits of education is to be able to distinguish between other educated people and victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect. It shows up not just in what they know but how they think, how they question, their ability to research. Their relationship with knowledge. Their objectivity.

That's why the future of our democracy is absolutely connected to the future of our education.

An informed electorate must learn to separate the flyshit from the pepper.

I look forward to you demonstrating your "education". I've been waiting for it for a very long time. So please, proceed.

 

[PMZ]

But your comment strongly suggested that you still don't have a clue what your cut and pasted exerpt actually means. You see cut and paste and demontrated knowledge are not the same thing. A great many of your posts, however, have been a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I could be tempted to use you as a classic example for illustration purposes.

The problem with victims of Dunning-Kruger is that they don't realise that they are victims. For all of his cut and paste "scholarship" he finds that he must completely avoid any discussion of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and how it applies to the greenhouse effect hypothesis. That topic, and relationship should be easy for a truely educated person, but he must avoid it like the plague because the cult sites where he gets his cut and paste also avoid such fundamental issues because the law speaks directly to the greenhouse effect hypothesis as it is stated.

But technically, those afflicted with Dunning-Kruger syndrome actually believe they are smarter, better, more capable than their opponent. The one who is totally stupid but wants others to believe he is smart isn't exhibiting Dunning-Kruger but instead is exhibiting a pathetic desire to impress.

And the troll simply amuses himself throwing out random stuff and doesn't even read what he cuts and pastes. He enjoys watching others jump through the hoops he puts out there.

I see that you are unable to formulate any questions or debate regarding my assertions. There is a good reason for that that you are not in a position to understand at the moment.

 

[PMZ]

The problem is not AGW. That's a scientific certainty. Approximately 1 degree C per effective doubling of GHG concentration.

The fact that you believe AGW is a scientific certainty when there doesn't exist a single scrap of empirical evidence proves a increased temperature is a causal effect of increased atmospheric CO2 is more evidence that you lack any real education. You are a church member repeating the dogma.

The currently most valid answer is that it will launch positive feedbacks such as melting ice which will 1) reduce the reflectivity and increase the absorption of solar shortwave. 2) release CO2 presently sequestered in permafrost increasing GHG concentration.

Why is that the most valid answer when we know from the past, that atmospheric concentrations were orders of magnitude greater than they are today no such chain reaction of positive feedbacks and consequent runaway warming effect took place?

That will up the ante to a warming of between 3 and 12 degrees C of average long term climatic temperature.

Since we know that for most of earth's history, it has been considerably warmer than the present, why do you assume that we are somehow causing the warming? The rate of temperature increase certainly isn't unprecedented...and the temperature itself certainly isn't unprecedented...compared to most of earth history, the present atmosphere is postively starved for CO2. The question is what proof is there that man's meager contribution (not even enough to overcome the natural variation from year to year) is causing any warming at all? Actual proof mind you, not mere corelation which isn't proof of anything.

We know empirically and theoretically the behavior of greenhouse gasses.

We know the rate at which the present burning of fossil fuels increases the concentration of GHGs In our atmosphere.

We know math.

We can measure GHG back radiation.

We can correlate increase in GHG concentration with measured temperature increase.

We know the results of other times in earth's history when we had elevated GHG concentrations.

 

[itfitzme]

Executive Summary Of AGW, climate change.

AGW is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, it is empirical. And the temperature change is driven by the CO2.

This is the history is increasing temp and CO2.

That CO2 absorbs infared radiation is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. It is a testable, empirical fact. In the laboratory, IR radiation can be demonstrated as absorbed by CO2.

CO2 is the same everywhere, that is why it has been identified as being a unique molecule. *If it changed, it would be something else. So, in the atmosphere, it acts just like in the laboratory.

Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming.

It's really just that simple.

Now, since 1880, temperature has gone up.

If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Alternatively graph is shown here;

This gives two parametric equations, CO2 and temperature as functions of time. *Of course, time doesn't cause things. Time is simply a property of reality that measures change.

To get the correlation accurately and precisely, we plot temperature anomoly as a function of CO2.

Now, we can determine how the temperature anomoly is related to CO2.

The chi square for the ln fit is 0.459 and the chi square for the linear fit is 0.453. So the linear fit is slightly better, but probably within the measurement errors. The climate sensitivity searched to 2.29 away from 3. The linear parameters searched to -3.176 and 0.009468.

An alternate regeression may be found at;

Temp v CO2 Correlation

This regression analysis, is based on this data

Which yields

"The data points covered the period from 1880 to 2007 inclusive, so there were N = 128 data points. The regression line I found was:

Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2

The numbers in parentheses are "t-statistics," and they measure how significant the numbers above them are. The coefficient of the CO2 term is significant at p < 2.4483 x 10-41. That means the chances against the relationship being coincidental are less than 1 in about 4 x 1040.

The correlation coefficient is about 0.874, which means 76.4% of the variance is accounted for. Every other factor that affected temperature during this time span, then, accounted for 23.6%."

Now here we have a nice ln fit of

"Anom = -1876.715416 * + 325.8718284 ln CO2" where CO2 is ranging from 290.7 to 383.6. *lnCO2 ranges from 5.6723 to 5.9495."

Or we can go with either; anom=-3.176 + CO2 * 0.009468 for the more precise data or; anom=-3.08 + CO2 * 0.00922 for the full data.

A line fit or a log fit works as well. Basically, in atmosphere, over the range of CO2 and temp anomoly, the two are indistinguishable, within the bounds of variability due to other factors. *These are accurate. *

As the CO2 is coming from fossil fuel use and accounts for the increase in temperature, the conclusion is easy. It isn't complicated. *

And it accounts for all but 23.6% of the variability when just examining CO2. *The rest comes from other factors.

We may do the same with the solar variation

This is solar irradiance against temperature anomoly

which is also included in

Which also contains;

And if you do the linear regression on solar irradiation, that huge divergence guarantees that the R^2 will be less than for CO2.*

Obviously, CO2 is the gas responsible for holding the *suns heat in. So a regression against CO2 yields a higher R^2 because it accounts for the majority suns heat. If there were no sun, CO2 would yield nothing. *If there were no CO2, the Earth would be substantially colder. *CO2 and the sun yields multiple times more temperature. The CO2 multiplies the suns influence. *

The Solar Cycle and Global Warming ? Starts With A Bang

A more refined, and precise, regression analysis of CO2, solar activity, volcanic eruptions, El Nino, etc., yields

When all relevant factors are calculated, that is "added", using a number of methods, the combined results are

And, when different future scenarios are considered, the predicted future temperature is;

The science, in it's details, is far more complex than this overview. *It involves the work climatologists, geologists, oceanographers, and biologists. *Each of these broad categories has specialists, scientists that focus on very specific details of their field, much like there are different medical doctors; surgeons, pediatricians, and podiatrists. *

As the study progresses, the regression becomes more refined. *

Like Einstien refined Kepler, Kepler refined Newton, Newton refined Galileo, Galileo refined Copernicus, and Copernicus refined Pythagorus, the science keeps refining the prediction. *Pythagorus was right, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, and Einstein were all right.*

CO2 is correct, and solar, volcanos, ozone, and sulfates were added, to get closer and closer. *What was accurate is now even more precise.

These changes will not be exactly the same, everywhere. *AGW causes climate change. Climate change causes changing weather patterns.

There will be increased drought, sea level rise, flooding, changes in precipitation, longer summer seasons, movement of *mobile species, extinction of others, increased forest fires, and other effects. *And, worst of all, it will strain our mature agrigultural industries in providing for the current populations as crop yield falls as a result of droughts and changing precipitation patterns.

Most people are smart enough to not try to reinvent science. *If you are among those, you can now move forward because you have the mind of an executive. *

zFacts on Controversial Topics

Index of /pub/data/cmb/images/indicators

JMF:itfitzme

 

[SSDD]

A simple replicable 200+ year old experiment proving what everybody but you knows. That you are simply wrong.

http://www2.ups.edu/faculty/jcevans/Pictet's experiment.pdf

Pictet's experiment? Interesting choice since it proves my case as well as any other. I can only suspect that you didn't understand his conclusions since you offer it up as evidence that I am wrong.

Pictet wasn't of the opinion that cold existed in and of itself but was instead an indication of negative heat, or the "privation" of heat. He believed that warm objects created a sort of tension in the air and the "heated air" around his thermometer would develop the same tension as the thermometer and would, by some mechanism reject any radiation from the thermometer.

In essence he described a standing wave between the air and the thermometer in which they essentially cancelled each other out...ie equilibrium.

He then took a flask of cold water or snow and placed it at the focal point of a concave mirror and a thermometer at the focal point of another mirror. As predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the temperature or the thermometer began to drop as it was radiating heat to the cooler flask. Interestingly, when the thermometer was placed somewhere close to, but not at the focal point of the mirror, the temperature appeared to remain unchanged...probably due to the limits of his thermometer. Prictet's experiment demonstrated one way energy flow from warm to cold.

That experiment brings to mind an experiment that you can perform in your own back yard for a minimal expense that will demonstrate undeniably that backradiation is not happening. If you like, I can IM to you a simple set of plans for a home made solar oven that I built myself for about 5 dollars. (I had some of the materials already in my workshop) If you have none of them, I doubt that you could spend more than 25 dollars.

Construct your solar oven. Be sure you have correctly identified the focal point. Then in the evening, point your solar oven at open sky. Place a thermometer at the focal point and you will see the temperature drop to well below ambient, precisely as the Second Law predicts. In fact, if the ambient temperature is 45 degrees F or less, you will see ice form in a bowl of water set at the focal point of your oven. If backradiation sufficient to warm the surface of the earth were actually happening, you would not see ice form when the temperature was 13 degrees above freezing.

You can point your oven at open sky during the daytime as well and again, you will see the temperature drop below the ambient temperature. Again, if backradiation were happening, then you would not see a temperature drop as your oven would be collecting and focusing the backradiation to a specific point which would cause the temperature to increase.

Pictet's experiment proves my point and achieved results that were predicted by the Second Law. The thermometer in the focal plane of a mirror reflecting a cold flask dropped in temperature...it did not remain in equlibrium with the room and it did not increase. The Second Law predicts that it would cool and that is exactly what it did. One way transfer of energy.

So tell me, which of the laws of physics do you believe predicts a greenhouse effect as it has been described by climate science.



He essen

 

[itfitzme]

Actual proof mind you, not mere corelation which isn't proof of anything.

This is an absurd statement. Correlation is a necessary part of proving causality. *There are two parts to a causal proof. *One is the correlation between two quantities amd the second is the one is manipulated and the other follows. *

In a laboratory setting, under controlled conditions, the independent quantity is manipulated amd the dependent quantity is correlated with it. Note that the proof of causality requires correlation in the laboritory.

The Beer-Lambert law is a concequence of laboritory correlation between IR radiation absorbtion by CO2 gas.

In a natural experiment, the variation of two quantities in nature, correlation is fundamentally required. Being a natural setting, and not a laboritory, the remaining environment is not controled and therefore other correlations will present.

Never the less, the fact that the controlled experiment proves causality between IR and CO2. CO2 is the same everywhere. It does not change properties outside.

The issue then being a question of proportions, how much effect is CO2 having in the atmosphere. The question is not if it is causal. Of course it is causal. The question is how much does it cause.

To determine this requires determining all the causal factors that are in play and tweezing out the contribution of each.

Simply saying, "coorelation isn't proof" is absurd. *In the laboratory, correlation is proof. *It is proof because there is no other correlation. *The only thing that exists is the IR and the CO2.

This then leads to correlation in nature as proof that the identical process is in play as occured in the laboritory. *

Proof requires correlation. *Repeating "correlation doesn't prove causality" is little more than an ignorant distraction. Of course correlation proves causality. It proves causality when causality exists. *Without correlation, no causality is proven. Correlation is required.

Anyone that says, "correlation doesn't prove causation" is demonstrating their hell bent desire to refuse the proof, by making an over simplified, out of context statement.

In the context of a controlled experiment, correlation proves causality.

In the context of a natural experiment where a priori causality has been established, correlation proves causality.

In the context of a natural experent with multiple a priori causes, multivariate correlation proves causality and tweezes out the individual contributions of each causal factor.

The full effect of AWG is of the form

Temp=a+b*f(solar)+c*f(GHG)+d*f(volcanic)+g*f(sulfates)+h*f(Ozone)+error_term, where f(x) is whatever function best accounts for the individual contributing factor.

The scientific process is very simple, and without question. As each of those functions are demonstrated as causal in the laboritory setting, they are causal in nature. *The above equation is regressed to determine the exact values of each term. *The error is examined for randomness, and if it displays a significant level of non ramdomness, further investigation is warrented. Further investigation may still be warrented as other observations reveal additional effects, like contributions due to El Nino events. In such a case, the formula is recast as

Temp=a+b*f(solar)+c*f(GHG)+d*f(volcanic)+g*f(sulfates)+h*f(Ozone)+j*f(El_Nino)+error_term

and the regression is done again. The error term will be reduced. *The R^2 will increase, and the coefficients will change slightly.

Propery done, due to interactions, the function may even be more like;

Temp=a+b*f(solar)+k*f(GHG,Solar)+c*f(GHG)+f(Whatever)+error_term

Where

k*f(GHG,Solar) is a function of both in combination. After all, GHG doesn't do anything in a cold dark universe.

That is where the reference to the lab experiments and known laws comes in. Even current temp becomes a factor in the change in temp. It get's messy, which is why few of us have the time or knowledge to tweeze it all out on the weekend with Excell. SAS is a good stat package for it, but you need a course of instruction. At best, the general, linear form is sufficient to demonstrate it goes in the right direction.

This is no different than proving causality of gravity by experimemting with numerous objects. *The equation is cast as

F=m*a+e, with sufficient measure, this becomes

F=m*a-b*f(surface_factors)+e *where

b*f(surface_factors) becomes the result of friction

Well designed, the resulting error term will fully account for measurement error and*

a=g=9.8 m/s^2.

The correlation is the proof. It is the proof because all relavent factors have been accounted for.

 

[SSDD]

We know empirically and theoretically the behavior of greenhouse gasses.

We know that the so called greenhouse gasses absorb and emit. That in no way proves that they can cause the atmosphere to warm.

We know the rate at which the present burning of fossil fuels increases the concentration of GHGs In our atmosphere.

No, we don't "know" any such thing. We theorize how much but we don't know because we lack a complete understanding of the intake and outgassing of CO2 across the entire system. Recent peer reviewed, published research has found that the ocean along the Northern California coast, for example is a net source of atmospheric CO2. There is no reason to believe that further research at other locations will yield the same result. That throws a seriously large monkey wrench into the proposed cycle of CO2 into and out of the atmosphere.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds ocean along N. California coast is a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere

A new paper published in Biogeosciences finds the ocean acts as a net source of CO2 along the Northern California coast, rather than as a sink. The authors find that "the coastal waters were a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere" during both periods of upwelling of deep waters as well as periods of "relaxation" without upwelling

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds the oceans are a net source of CO2

A new paper published in Deep-Sea Research finds the ocean is a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere, the opposite of claims by climate alarmists that the ocean removes CO2 from the atmosphere. According to the authors, "At the [research] site, the ocean is primarily a source of CO2 to the atmosphere, except during strong upwelling events." The paper also notes, "Astor et al.(2005) observed the interactions between physical and biochemical parameters that lead to temporal [over time] variations in fCO2 [CO2 flux from the] sea, finding that even during periods of high production, the CO2 flux between the ocean and the atmosphere decreased but remained positive, i.e. CO2 escaped from the ocean to the atmosphere."

We can measure GHG back radiation.

Actually, we can't. We can fool ourselves into believing that we are measuring backradiation, but the solar oven experiment I provided you with above is demonstrable, physical, observable evidence that it is not happening. If it were, the oven would collect and concentrate the backradiation resulting in warming at the focal point...not cooling. That is where education comes in. Being able to look at a phenomenon and understsand what is happening and what is not happening. If backradiation were happening, do explain why the focal point would be cooler than the ambient temperature.

We can correlate increase in GHG concentration with measured temperature increase.

Of course, every ice core ever taken reveals that increases in temperature result in increased atmospheric CO2.

We know the results of other times in earth's history when we had elevated GHG concentrations.

Of course, if atmospheric CO2 follows temperature, it stands to reason that at other times in earth's history when the temperatures were higher, there would be increased atmospheric CO2. We also know from those past times that the present is in no way unusual or unprecedented and in fact, far milder than many interglacials. Lets just hope that the fact that this is a mild interglacial that it is not a short one. Cold kills far more readily than heat. Second Law of thermodynamics don'tcha know.

 

[SSDD]

This is an absurd statement. Correlation is a necessary part of proving causality. *There are two parts to a causal proof. *One is the correlation between two quantities amd the second is the one is manipulated and the other follows. *

Interesting that you find it necessary to alter my name. Psychologically speaking, those who resort to name calling, especially fiddling with the names people are identified by, is an indication that the name caller doesn't feel OK about himself. The name caller does this in a futile attempt to make himself feel more powerful, or in some way superior to the one he is calling names. Your name calling is an attempt to project your unhappiness with yourself upon me.

Personally, I take name calling on these boards as a compliment. Rather than simply cut and paste my screen name and post number, you take the time to try and project the feelings of insignifigance and intimidation you feel when speaking to me upon me. What more flattering thing could you possibly do than to publicly admit that I intimidate you and make you feel insecure? I encourage you to continue and perhaps expend more energy and express more of your insecurity through even more creative misuses of my screen name.

Back to the topic....corelation is only meaningful if the corelation is accurate. In the case of climate science, it is not. Ice cores show that CO2 increases after temperature increases, not before. If you were making a case that temperature increases result in higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and took the evidence that ice cores provide, in that they show that every time temperatures increase, atmospheric CO2 increases follow, then you would be making a usefull corelation. As it stands, your corelation is meaningless because you have ignored what the ice cores tell us.

 

[PMZ]

A simple replicable 200+ year old experiment proving what everybody but you knows. That you are simply wrong.

http://www2.ups.edu/faculty/jcevans/Pictet's experiment.pdf

Pictet's experiment? Interesting choice since it proves my case as well as any other. I can only suspect that you didn't understand his conclusions since you offer it up as evidence that I am wrong.

Pictet wasn't of the opinion that cold existed in and of itself but was instead an indication of negative heat, or the "privation" of heat. He believed that warm objects created a sort of tension in the air and the "heated air" around his thermometer would develop the same tension as the thermometer and would, by some mechanism reject any radiation from the thermometer.

In essence he described a standing wave between the air and the thermometer in which they essentially cancelled each other out...ie equilibrium.

He then took a flask of cold water or snow and placed it at the focal point of a concave mirror and a thermometer at the focal point of another mirror. As predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the temperature or the thermometer began to drop as it was radiating heat to the cooler flask. Interestingly, when the thermometer was placed somewhere close to, but not at the focal point of the mirror, the temperature appeared to remain unchanged...probably due to the limits of his thermometer. Prictet's experiment demonstrated one way energy flow from warm to cold.

That experiment brings to mind an experiment that you can perform in your own back yard for a minimal expense that will demonstrate undeniably that backradiation is not happening. If you like, I can IM to you a simple set of plans for a home made solar oven that I built myself for about 5 dollars. (I had some of the materials already in my workshop) If you have none of them, I doubt that you could spend more than 25 dollars.

Construct your solar oven. Be sure you have correctly identified the focal point. Then in the evening, point your solar oven at open sky. Place a thermometer at the focal point and you will see the temperature drop to well below ambient, precisely as the Second Law predicts. In fact, if the ambient temperature is 45 degrees F or less, you will see ice form in a bowl of water set at the focal point of your oven. If backradiation sufficient to warm the surface of the earth were actually happening, you would not see ice form when the temperature was 13 degrees above freezing.

You can point your oven at open sky during the daytime as well and again, you will see the temperature drop below the ambient temperature. Again, if backradiation were happening, then you would not see a temperature drop as your oven would be collecting and focusing the backradiation to a specific point which would cause the temperature to increase.

Pictet's experiment proves my point and achieved results that were predicted by the Second Law. The thermometer in the focal plane of a mirror reflecting a cold flask dropped in temperature...it did not remain in equlibrium with the room and it did not increase. The Second Law predicts that it would cool and that is exactly what it did. One way transfer of energy.

So tell me, which of the laws of physics do you believe predicts a greenhouse effect as it has been described by climate science.



He essen

What it proved of course was that the 32 degree F flask radiated heat that effected the thermometer. Radiantly. It's all covered in the pdf. You have to read the whole thing. If you are really interested. It was an exact replica in that regard of GHGs radiantly warming the earth in spite of the fact that in most cases their absolute temperature is lower than earths.

Is that the last obstacle in the way of you understanding and accepting AGW?

 

[itfitzme]

This is an absurd statement. Correlation is a necessary part of proving causality. *There are two parts to a causal proof. *One is the correlation between two quantities amd the second is the one is manipulated and the other follows. *

Interesting that you find it necessary to alter my name. *Psychologically speaking, those who resort to name calling, especially fiddling with the names people are identified by, is an indication that the name caller doesn't feel OK about himself. *The name caller does this in a futile attempt to make himself feel more powerful, or in some way superior to the one he is calling names. *Your name calling is an attempt to project your unhappiness with yourself upon me. *

Personally, I take name calling on these boards as a compliment. *Rather than simply cut and paste my screen name and post number, you take the time to try and project the feelings of insignifigance and intimidation you feel when speaking to me upon me. *What more flattering thing could you possibly do than to publicly admit that I intimidate you and make you feel insecure? *I encourage you to continue and perhaps expend more energy and express more of your insecurity through even more creative misuses of my screen name.

Back to the topic....corelation is only meaningful if the corelation is accurate. *In the case of climate science, it is not. *Ice cores show that CO2 increases after temperature increases, not before. *If you were making a case that temperature increases result in higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and took the evidence that ice cores provide, in that they show that every time temperatures increase, atmospheric CO2 increases follow, then you would be making a usefull corelation. *As it stands, your corelation is meaningless because you have ignored what the ice cores tell us.

*Or it could be that I just consider it entertaining to use SSaDhD, Walleyed, Slacksack, and Flatulance.

Like Freud said, "Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar." And as correlation requires some demonstrated laboritory level causality to serve as proof, any illusory correlation, in this context, means nothing.

The ice cores do not change the correlationnal causality if current anomoly vs CO2. CO2 is the same in nature as it is in the laboritory. That CO2 absorbes IR in the laboritory demonstrates that it absorbes IR in nature. This is as factual for the current record as it is for the paleo record.

The natural paleo record isn't a lab experiment and therfore doesn't have direct bearing on the current record, or vis a vis. The path of scientific reason and proof is from lab to current record and lab to paleo record.

When, and if, the full effect of factors in each natural system has been appropriately accounted for, independently, then they ma be compared directly to reveal any implications that might otherwise have beem overlooked. Thise implications are then further investigated.

Like CARVE, which is currently investigating the effect of warming on thawimg of the permafrost and its potential for releasing additional GHG.

There in lies the biggest issue, the potential for AWG to stimulate further release of natural stores of GHG.

It is important, when attempting to understand all thing scientific, that you build that understanding in a coherent fashion. Simply following a random path of arguing against the larger body of science yields nothing but lack of knowledge.

My obzervation is that you cannot get past this lack of understanding of how correlation functions in scientific proof. Lacking that, nothing that follows will be of any value. You need to focus on that.