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

[flacaltenn]

It PISSES ME OFF that you accuse me of lying about giving you 8 classical text references to Bi-Directional radiative heat transfer.. This was given to you PAGES ago and REPEATEDLY..

Had you GONE to the link I gave you --- you would have certainly seen these excerpts along with the title pages of the text books in which they appear..

Bi-directional radiative flow is the BASIS for the modern coinage of "back-radiation"..

Still need help understanding "back-radiation" ???
Or is handing you a pile of textbooks -- a big waste of my time???

 

[gslack]

Not expending any more energy on this with you unless you tell me which of the six issues in contention is bugging you.. I've posted the list THREE TIMES now..

You are playing 2 of the issues here in this one post.. That because backradiation is mentioned in basic thermo --- it can't exist.. And the other is that objects in thermal equilibrium CEASE to radiate at each other under thermal equilibrium (DSlack Physics).. That's your HS level NASA diagram.. Radiative Physics says those objects are STILL back radiating at EACH OTHER in equal and opposite directions.

Right now you're lying about what I've given.. There were 8 THERMO texts quoted in Scienceofdoom and no EARTHLY reason why I or anyone else would have to go and independently retrieve those references.. YOU just ignored them.. with no comments..

Comment on the six issues, put them in YOUR ORDER of wrongness and we can continue..

It wasn't basic "thermo" it was a proper text book.. Hell you brought it into the discussion. You just don't like it now that it defies your logic.. Sorry but that's the difference between pseudo-climate science and real science..

I already addressed your list specifically in a previous post, but if you feel taking the Ian route is best be my guest. Just deny it was addressed and keep on dancing..

Please provide the post link where you told me WHICH of the 6 issues were a problem to you...

The graphic and simple rule under it, explains a great deal.. For instance, how can backradiation effect change in that graphic if the rule is correct? IF correct, then there could not be any heat gain from incidental backradiation from any of the three objects.. Otherwise the rule is wrong. IF backradiation exists and does as you claim, then the rule cannot be correct... SO which is it? IF as we all know all things radiate, and as you state they cannot decide which direction to radiate or not radiate in even if one direction is warmer, and that backradiation does effect change in other objects around it, than this thermodynamic equilibrium rule here cannot be so. In fact the concept of thermodynamic equilibrium is put into question if your claim is correct as you state it..

How could things ever reach thermodynamic equilibrium between 3 objects if backradiation from each object warms the other object and so on?

See what happens when you actually apply your BS theory? It creates havok. You claim it doesn't violate any laws but in practice it clearly does. Re-using the same energy for the same purpose and in the same system creates an infinite feedback loop..

We don't even know if those 3 objects are in a vacuum or air or water.. Would make a diff as to the major component of thermal prop being conduction or radiation..

Point is --- according to BBody Physics --- those objects are STILL radiating photons.. If you DENY this --- please provide me a reference that says that a BlackBody radiates CONDITIONALLY depending on what surrounds it.. That statement doesn't exist in science.

So from the appropriate RADIATIVE thermo view.. The bodies are exchanging the appropriate amount of photons to make EQUAL AND OPPOSITE changes to their temp. ((Excluding considerations of the MUTUAL loss rate to the world outside of the cartoon))

If that WASN'T true, you could not read their temp with an IR thermometer in equilibrium.. QED...

No havok. No BS.. Now be a good little whiner and go show me a single reference that says BBody RADIATION of EM IR STOPS when it reaches equilibrium with it's surroundings.

That BI-DIRECTIONAL exchange INCLUDES "back-radiation" from EACH of the bodies.

I'd appreciate if you save the victory dance on my mangled corpse til you actually land a punch.. My patience is about gone...

If you DON'T link to where you the discussed the six issues --- I'm pretty much done with the tutorial part of this thread..

It's in this thread do your own leg work. If you had been actually reading and responding fairly to my posts instead repeating the same thing and claiming no one answers your questions, you would know.. I'll give you a hint, it's the one where I cited the post you speak of..

Frankly I don't care if you are done with anything you arrogant ass.. Get over yourself, you're a forum poster no better than any of us. Keep your condescension, I for one have grown tired of it..

LOL, the fact you think I was claiming something about radiation stopping somehow,is either testament to how little you understand this, or how dishonest you can be when you don't like how it turns out.. Please try and stop the BS.. No one claimed radiation stops, or that it decides not to radiate in a certain direction, or checks the temperature before radiating... That's Ian BS and you are parroting it.. Either that or you don't understand what is meant when I say "just because something radiates, it doesn't mean it can effect change in it's source or warmer object.."

So which is it? DO you really not understand it, or are you just not liking what it means and playing the obtuse game?

I Don't know anymore, I used to think you just didn't know. Wouldn't be the first time a person solid in math and concepts didn't grasp the reality of their hypothesis... But now, I think you are just playing obtuse rather than follow it to it's logical end. And that's cowardly. You talk down to people long enough, can't get upset when they test your right to do so..

The graphic from NASA is sound.. You know it I know it... AND further if you were intellectually honest you would know what it means.. It doesn't mean radiation stops once it reaches equilibrium and nobody, not me or anybody here to my knowledge claimed it did. What happens is the energy is equal to energy out meaning no change in the two or in this case 3 objects. They radiate but so what? They do not alter one anothers temperature, especially not through re-used energy from one another..

Once more, just because something cooler can or does radiate to another object that is warmer, it does not mean it will alter the temperature of that object... How many times do I have to repeat it before you actually understand or acknowledge it? LOL

P.S. Don't tell me what I must do, you don't dictate to me.. If you want to know where I responded look it up or here's an idea, read what you respond to fairly... Now please go stomp your foot at someone else,it doesn't cut it with me...

 

[gslack]

It PISSES ME OFF that you accuse me of lying about giving you 8 classical text references to Bi-Directional radiative heat transfer.. This was given to you PAGES ago and REPEATEDLY..

Had you GONE to the link I gave you --- you would have certainly seen these excerpts along with the title pages of the text books in which they appear..

Bi-directional radiative flow is the BASIS for the modern coinage of "back-radiation"..

Still need help understanding "back-radiation" ???
Or is handing you a pile of textbooks -- a big waste of my time???

Wait please tell me where you got the idea that radiation is automatically back-radiation???

Please, I'd love to know where that was taught or who told you that.. It's an asinine and completely WRONG idea... You are assuming since all things radiate they must effect change in everything,be it warmer or colder than the other object. and that is just not so. The Graphic from NASA showed this, but you seem to disagree anyway..

BTW, the graphic shows the Zeroth Law.. Figured you would have spotted it right off.. Being so quick to speak down to people, hoped you had some reason or some ability to at least make it seem like impatience or something.. But no, it was just arrogance...

ZEROTH LAW... It's kind of a big thing ya know...

If you want to believe that back-radiation is radiation, or that things radiate and they must effect change in another warmer object, because they radiate, or for whatever reason you think, be my guest... BUT, don't try and force it on me, and certainly don't try and talk down to people who disagree.

I think the theory is flawed. For one the claim requires near lossless energy transfer if not perfect. Two, it in the very least bends the laws of thermodynamics so badly they are barely appear laws by the time they are done. And three, its validity calls into question other areas of the same theory it was born from. Lastly, the entire thing is based on a theory that is admittedly incomplete even by it's own creators... Incomplete theory as basis for another theory with this many discrepancies??? And you call it fact???

ROFL

 

[gslack]

I won't be on much for a few days. If I don't respond in a reasonable time it's because of work travel..

 

[IanC]

Last try here. You say the gases are slowing heat loss...

Tell me the rationale GSlack style for that change of effective rate of cooling...

BTW: I read you comments to Ian ridiculing the way that Radiation Physics actually works and claiming that it borders on belief on perpetual motion. This is not true.. It's possible to slow the heat loss of a body to a flow approaching zero.. That's just good materials design. That's NOT perpetual motion.. And I don't see anything ridiculous about retaining heat. If you then attempted to do that AND put the heat to work at the same time --- call the patent office in the morning..

I'm breathlessly awaiting the physics of atmos gases slowing the earths cooling rate. Remember -- it's accepted that radiative flow is the primary mechanism here -- so if you use the words convection or conduction -- please cite the justification for ignoring such evidence as in Trenberth work or classic views of the relative contributions of the conductive, convective and radiative components of heating the lower atmos..

NO radiation physics doesn't border on belief in perpetual motion, his interpretation of it does.. See the difference?

ANd the slowing of heat loss is due to the constant transfer of that energy as it is transferred through the gas.. Your own link in your next post gives an example just before it turns into a "climate science" bit of nonsense..

RE: the bolded above.. This does not agree with the view that CONDUCTIVE heating is a miniscule contribution to earth surface heat loss.. Perhaps you have a reference saying the conduction and convection are the PRIMARY source of surface heat loss??? Doubt it..

I even mentioned that in the my quote above.. Do you know the diff between conduction and radiation??

Bxzzzzt --- Try again..

maybe I should argue with you , flac. at least I know I'll get ideas rather than insults back.

while I am not necessarily agreeing with Trenberth's numbers, I think as a first estimate they are probably in the ballpark.

160w solar input at the surface goes out as 40w through the atmospheric window and 26w other radiation, but the rest leaves the surface (to the cloud top) as thermal and evapotranspiration. that is hardly miniscule. radiation only really takes over past the cloud top, and of course is the only way to actually escape the earth.

the whole water cycle thing is what regulates our climate, and has done for billions of years, even when the Sun's output towards the Earth was considerably lower. fewer clouds means more solar insolation, which leads to warming. warming leads to evaporation and more clouds, which in turn reflects some solar input. a smooth functioning governor that works especially well in the tropics where most of the energy from the Sun is received.

 

[Foxfyre]

Flac's posted pages from 'textbooks' actually come from a blog entitled Scienceofdoom. No idea who prepared the 'textbook' pages or their origin. That is an interesting blog though dedicated wholly to the subject of climate science. I was interested that the owner and primary director of the blog seems to have an open mind on the subject and rejects the climate science as religion concept that most of our pro-AGW folks here promote. An open mind is a very good thing.

 

[PMZ]

Part 1. One way to classify a human population would be to put them on a scale where at, say, the left end, would be folks who believe explicitly and always in the discoveries of science. That science is the truth, and nothing but the truth, including the certainty as portrayed by any current science. At the right would be those who believe that all science is a sham and the real truths of the universe are beyond mankind's reach.

If one would put the US population on such a scale, I would predict a bi-polar normal distribution. The biggest peak would be well skewed to the left as befits a group with a modern STEM education. The smaller peak would be closer to the right and would be those who generally believe in science, but who make some exceptions because of their environmental politics.

At this forum, those at that smaller peak would be those who argue against AGW using science. That is they accept much climate science, and use it to support and explain up to what they accept as true, then veer to the right when approaching the current scientific conclusions that demonstrate the inevitability of AGW, what they don't want to be true.

Like science might be a Queen or Jack, but no match for the Ace of politics.

Part 2 to follow.

 

[Foxfyre]

And this probably deserves a mention in this thread. Two days ago on July 18, the Senate held a hearing on climate change with scientist witnesses invited by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) and Sen. James Inhofe (R). This was reported in Forbes:

However, climate scientists including United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lead author Hans von Storch report temperatures have remained essentially flat for the past 10 years, and indeed for the past 15 years. Storch told Der Spiegel that 98 percent of IPCC climate models cannot replicate the prolonged pause in global warming, and IPCC may need to revise its computer models to correct their apparent warming bias.

During yesterday’s Environment and Public Works hearings, Sen. David Vitter asked a panel of experts, including experts selected by Boxer, “Can any witnesses say they agree with Obama’s statement that warming has accelerated during the past 10 years?”

For several seconds, nobody said a word. Sitting just a few rows behind the expert witnesses, I thought I might have heard a few crickets chirping, but I couldn’t tell for sure. We’ll give Obama the benefit of the doubt and count the crickets in the “maybe” camp.

After several seconds of deafening silence, global warming activist Heidi Cullen, who formerly served as a meteorologist for the Weather Channel, attempted to change the subject. Cullen said our focus should be on longer time periods rather than the 10-year period mentioned by Obama. When pressed, however, she contradicted Obama’s central assertion and said warming has slowed, not accelerated.

Several minutes later, Sen. Jeff Sessions returned to the topic and sought additional clarity. Sessions recited Obama’s quote claiming accelerating global warming during the past 10 years and asked, “Do any of you support that quote?”

Again, a prolonged and deafening silence ensued. Neither Cullen nor any of the other experts on the panel spoke a word, not even in an attempt to change the subject.
Ouch! ?Senate global warming hearing backfires on Democrats?
Senator Barbara Boxer?s Own Experts Contradict Obama On Global Warming
Senator Barbara Boxer's Own Experts Contradict Obama On Global Warming - Forbes

And of course this interesting story has been essentially non existent in the MSM or on the warmer religionist blogs and message boards.

Sometimes what is not reported is even more interesting than what is.

 

[itfitzme]

Bi-modal?

 

[PMZ]

Wouldn't that depend on what the cooling rate was to begin with and what it is over time? If I put a warm roast, say 100 degrees, in the refrigerator set at 40 degrees, the temperature in the fridge will be temporarily raised somewhat but the roast will cool at a certain rate. If I put the same size roast at the same temperature in the fridge set at 45 degrees, the temperature in the fridge will rise a bit more than before and the roast will not cool as rapidly, but it will still cool.

And we are assuming that there are no other variables to add to that scenario too. And I am guessing that we don't have the means to guage all the variables in warming and cooling in climate science as much as we can guage the controlled conditions in a refrigerator.

Yep.. The main heating and cooling paths have to be accounted for. Assumptions are made that solar insolation is NOT changing, and the drain rate to cold space is not changing. You might even dismiss convection and conduction as minor when calculating the radiative part of the heat budget...

This is what you do in a textbook.. You make simplifying assumptions so that the BASIC concepts are isolated and presented coherently. You cannot "teach" a comprehensive model of something like the atmos in a text. That takes a room of supercomputers and several man-years of programming.

Part of the problem with this "conspiracy" revolt is that the standard Thermo texts virtually ignore radiative heat transfer. Because it DOESN'T behave like the heat flow due to molecule flow thru materials. That connection is never really made until the students are exposed to Electromagnetic Fields and Waves or never.

That's WHY you find this problem of GreenHouse in Atmos Physics books and not really in classic Thermo. In classic thermo -- you MIGHT find a 2 body problem involving radiation. And I've shown multiple examples of that. But then -- they don't use the term "back-radiation" to describe the TWO-WAY exchange of photons between those bodies.

The problems with GreenHouse theory have to do EXACTLY with your observation about what assumptions are being made in the cheap ass climate models. And MOST of the models for AGW have been designed TO SHOW the predominant effect of CO2. You get what you program.. And I'd rather be arguing about that -- than dealing with "rogue skeptics" who deny that CO2 is a GreenHouse gas or claim that the GreenHouse effect is somehow a "perpetual motion scheme"...

And, to go back to the refrigerator analogy, just some of the variables affecting the rate at which a warm roast will cool will also be affected by whether the refrigerator is empty or whether there are other already chilled substances around it, where it is placed in the refrigerator, how it is wrapped or whether it is covered, etc. etc. etc.

In climate science we can easily argue that we all share the same pool of air and mostly the same sea water, and yet there are huge variables in the temperature of air and water depending on where it is located on the planet. So warming in the arctic does not produce an equal warming in the Anarctic region etc. Water in the gulf stream will be even of a somewhat different chemistry than that in the Bering Sea. The air in the jet streams behaves much differently than air over the Equator, etc.

Unless ALL possible variables are entered into the climate models, and that would be humanly impossible to accomplish with the technology we have at this time, to put all our faith in those climate models to determine our fate as a people is foolish at best; criminal at worst.

Heat transfer in a refrigerator is much more convection and conduction. Very little radiation.

 

[PMZ]

Bi-modal?

Correct. Thanks. Brain fart from too much vacation.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yep.. The main heating and cooling paths have to be accounted for. Assumptions are made that solar insolation is NOT changing, and the drain rate to cold space is not changing. You might even dismiss convection and conduction as minor when calculating the radiative part of the heat budget...

This is what you do in a textbook.. You make simplifying assumptions so that the BASIC concepts are isolated and presented coherently. You cannot "teach" a comprehensive model of something like the atmos in a text. That takes a room of supercomputers and several man-years of programming.

Part of the problem with this "conspiracy" revolt is that the standard Thermo texts virtually ignore radiative heat transfer. Because it DOESN'T behave like the heat flow due to molecule flow thru materials. That connection is never really made until the students are exposed to Electromagnetic Fields and Waves or never.

That's WHY you find this problem of GreenHouse in Atmos Physics books and not really in classic Thermo. In classic thermo -- you MIGHT find a 2 body problem involving radiation. And I've shown multiple examples of that. But then -- they don't use the term "back-radiation" to describe the TWO-WAY exchange of photons between those bodies.

The problems with GreenHouse theory have to do EXACTLY with your observation about what assumptions are being made in the cheap ass climate models. And MOST of the models for AGW have been designed TO SHOW the predominant effect of CO2. You get what you program.. And I'd rather be arguing about that -- than dealing with "rogue skeptics" who deny that CO2 is a GreenHouse gas or claim that the GreenHouse effect is somehow a "perpetual motion scheme"...

And, to go back to the refrigerator analogy, just some of the variables affecting the rate at which a warm roast will cool will also be affected by whether the refrigerator is empty or whether there are other already chilled substances around it, where it is placed in the refrigerator, how it is wrapped or whether it is covered, etc. etc. etc.

In climate science we can easily argue that we all share the same pool of air and mostly the same sea water, and yet there are huge variables in the temperature of air and water depending on where it is located on the planet. So warming in the arctic does not produce an equal warming in the Anarctic region etc. Water in the gulf stream will be even of a somewhat different chemistry than that in the Bering Sea. The air in the jet streams behaves much differently than air over the Equator, etc.

Unless ALL possible variables are entered into the climate models, and that would be humanly impossible to accomplish with the technology we have at this time, to put all our faith in those climate models to determine our fate as a people is foolish at best; criminal at worst.

Heat transfer in a refrigerator is much more convection and conduction. Very little radiation.

Let me guess. You didn't take highschool chemistry did you. And you haven't had any physics classes either.

If you had you would know: all matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation.

 

[PMZ]

Part 2. Of course the paradox of the bi-modal distribution mentioned above comes from the fact that the conclusion of AGW comes from the simplest of radiative thermodynamics.

That a body in space can only be heated and cooled by radiation. That if the heat in is constant and the heat out is reduced, no matter the cause, the body must regain equilibrium by increasing its temperature. There are simply no other possibilities.

That the earth has always been warmed by GHGs. In their absence in our atmosphere, there is a good chance that life as we know it would never have happened.

And the degree to which GHGs reduce or increase heat out is proportional to the number of their molecules in our atmosphere, their concentration as an atmospheric component.

Of course how the earth, oceans, atmosphere and life forms interact to achieve the different temperature required by changes in GHG concentration is a hugely complex process that requires the utmost of science and tools to predict.

While the fact of it is unarguably simple.

 

[PMZ]

And, to go back to the refrigerator analogy, just some of the variables affecting the rate at which a warm roast will cool will also be affected by whether the refrigerator is empty or whether there are other already chilled substances around it, where it is placed in the refrigerator, how it is wrapped or whether it is covered, etc. etc. etc.

In climate science we can easily argue that we all share the same pool of air and mostly the same sea water, and yet there are huge variables in the temperature of air and water depending on where it is located on the planet. So warming in the arctic does not produce an equal warming in the Anarctic region etc. Water in the gulf stream will be even of a somewhat different chemistry than that in the Bering Sea. The air in the jet streams behaves much differently than air over the Equator, etc.

Unless ALL possible variables are entered into the climate models, and that would be humanly impossible to accomplish with the technology we have at this time, to put all our faith in those climate models to determine our fate as a people is foolish at best; criminal at worst.

Heat transfer in a refrigerator is much more convection and conduction. Very little radiation.

Let me guess. You didn't take highschool chemistry did you. And you haven't had any physics classes either.

If you had you would know: all matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation.

I agree.

My point is that if two bodies are contained in an atmosphere, and are at nearly the same absolute temperature, the transfer of heat between them and the atmosphere, by convection and conduction, will be much higher than by radiation.

On the other hand the transfer of heat between the filament of the light bulb in the refrigerator, when the bulb is on, would be a higher percent by radiation.

And the filament would be warmed by even the the cold food, and the food warmed more by the very hot filament.

That's why LED refrigerator lighting is such a good idea.

 

[flacaltenn]

Flac's posted pages from 'textbooks' actually come from a blog entitled Scienceofdoom. No idea who prepared the 'textbook' pages or their origin. That is an interesting blog though dedicated wholly to the subject of climate science. I was interested that the owner and primary director of the blog seems to have an open mind on the subject and rejects the climate science as religion concept that most of our pro-AGW folks here promote. An open mind is a very good thing.

With respect.. I provided a link to the page that shows those textbook excerpts.

I reprinted in USMB only the text references that mattered.. But I gave EVERYONE the link to the scienceofdoom page that did the research.. SEVERAL TIMES..

Amazing Things we Find in Textbooks ? The Real Second Law of Thermodynamics | The Science of Doom

On that page you will find NOT ONLY the stuff I snipped but also the TITLE PAGE FROM EACH OF TEXTS and the authors.. I am NOT making a special trip to Vanderbilt moldy book stacks to pull each one of those when someone else ALREADY did the work..

Don't CARE what Dr. scienceofdoom really thinks. The statements from 6 classical Heat Transfer texts says..

1) That radiative heat transfer is MULTI-DIRECTIONAL. That means EVERYTHING radiates and absorbs to some extent..

2) The math shows calculations for BI-DIRECTIONAL objects such that COLDER objects contribute to the NET FLOW.

3) The NET FLOW does not violate any primary law of thermo for radiative heating.

WE on the other hand are not conversing on a "science blog". We are on a HORSESHIT public forum with NO controls on truth. Which means that I can show 6 excerpts from traditional physics and be MOCKED FOR IT ---- while some geezer in his underwear can tell me he won't READ or UNDERSTAND the textbooks --- but that his ALTERNATE interpretation of physics is the truth..

Pretty tired of the petty objections to sourcing.. If you believe those texts are wrong. Then tell me WHY they are wrong.. Not because of WHAT BITSTREAM they were acquired over..

Not sniping at you FoxFyre.. I'm just tired of defending science against mere stupidity and speculation.. SOMEBODY better start debating the PHYSICS and not the conspiracy theory around it...

 

[itfitzme]

Unless ALL possible variables are entered into the climate models, and that would be humanly impossible to accomplish with the technology we have at this time, to put all our faith in those climate models to determine our fate as a people is foolish at best; criminal at worst.

Well, now that just isn't true. We put our confidence in thousands upon thousands of models without putting all the information into them. If we hadn't, we wouldn't have ever left the cave.

 

[PMZ]

Flac's posted pages from 'tex
tbooks' actually come from a blog entitled Scienceofdoom. No idea who prepared the 'textbook' pages or their origin. That is an interesting blog though dedicated wholly to the subject of climate science. I was interested that the owner and primary director of the blog seems to have an open mind on the subject and rejects the climate science as religion concept that most of our pro-AGW folks here promote. An open mind is a very good thing.

"rejects the climate science as religion concept that most of our pro-AGW folks here promote."

The science of AGW is what it is as the current knowledge of mankind in the field of the impact of GHG concentrations on climatic temperatures.

What has religion to do with that?

 

[flacaltenn]

NO radiation physics doesn't border on belief in perpetual motion, his interpretation of it does.. See the difference?

ANd the slowing of heat loss is due to the constant transfer of that energy as it is transferred through the gas.. Your own link in your next post gives an example just before it turns into a "climate science" bit of nonsense..

RE: the bolded above.. This does not agree with the view that CONDUCTIVE heating is a miniscule contribution to earth surface heat loss.. Perhaps you have a reference saying the conduction and convection are the PRIMARY source of surface heat loss??? Doubt it..

I even mentioned that in the my quote above.. Do you know the diff between conduction and radiation??

Bxzzzzt --- Try again..

maybe I should argue with you , flac. at least I know I'll get ideas rather than insults back.

while I am not necessarily agreeing with Trenberth's numbers, I think as a first estimate they are probably in the ballpark.

160w solar input at the surface goes out as 40w through the atmospheric window and 26w other radiation, but the rest leaves the surface (to the cloud top) as thermal and evapotranspiration. that is hardly miniscule. radiation only really takes over past the cloud top, and of course is the only way to actually escape the earth.

the whole water cycle thing is what regulates our climate, and has done for billions of years, even when the Sun's output towards the Earth was considerably lower. fewer clouds means more solar insolation, which leads to warming. warming leads to evaporation and more clouds, which in turn reflects some solar input. a smooth functioning governor that works especially well in the tropics where most of the energy from the Sun is received.

We SHOULD argue about something.. That's a great idea.. MAYBE -- something would get resolved between 2 REASONABLY informed people.. You go first. Pick a fight...

Reducing the surface radiation ESCAPING the atmos to only 40 seems like something of a miracle to me, BUT --- after sifting thru those texts that GSlack and SSDD required, I'm feeling a bit better about that..

Funny comment I ran across in the Atmos Physic text.. The guy lays out the "simple GHouse" model (thin atmos -- homogenous properties) and calculates the S-Boltzmann deal for the earth and the BACKRADIATION component of the GH layer. Does the math and comes up with EXACTLY a surface temp in the right ballpark..

But the comedy comes from his statement in brackets after the numbers.. From memory --

((This result is a bit of unexpected serendipity since our model ignored convection and conduction heating from the surface and adiabatic and thickness effects in the insulating layer. It should not be as accurate as it seems..))

I think that pretty much describes my problem with Trenberth's grand result..

 

[Foxfyre]

Then give the title and publisher of the textbooks Flac, and you're off the hook. It would be helpful if you highlighted the specific passages that support your argument. I don't know and don't really care what is in the textbooks on this subject because I am more interested in the validity of the theory of global warming than I am in discussing chemistry or physics related to climate change. I do trust West's evaluation of modern textbooks that are designed to support AGW and are suspect in the science they use to do that. I have opinions of qualified scientists who support his opinion about that. Do the textbook pages you cited fall into that category? I don't know. Do you? Not getting on your case. Just observing that huge globs of cut and paste are usually not useful for those of us interested in the realities and policies related to climate science.

It isn't that I am not interested in science, but so far as AGW goes, I want to know that the science models used to support policy are supportable by real facts and evidence and are not intentionally flawed to validate that policy.

And all the stuff that some are arguing re back radiation and other components of atmospheric science--some are obviously only pretending to argue that while they don't have any sort of understanding re what they are arguing--all that is no doubt interesting to some. For me it just muddies the waters and avoids the real issues of AGW and how government is attempting to take away our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities via what may very well be flawed science.

 

[flacaltenn]

And this probably deserves a mention in this thread. Two days ago on July 18, the Senate held a hearing on climate change with scientist witnesses invited by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) and Sen. James Inhofe (R). This was reported in Forbes:

However, climate scientists including United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lead author Hans von Storch report temperatures have remained essentially flat for the past 10 years, and indeed for the past 15 years. Storch told Der Spiegel that 98 percent of IPCC climate models cannot replicate the prolonged pause in global warming, and IPCC may need to revise its computer models to correct their apparent warming bias.

During yesterday’s Environment and Public Works hearings, Sen. David Vitter asked a panel of experts, including experts selected by Boxer, “Can any witnesses say they agree with Obama’s statement that warming has accelerated during the past 10 years?”

For several seconds, nobody said a word. Sitting just a few rows behind the expert witnesses, I thought I might have heard a few crickets chirping, but I couldn’t tell for sure. We’ll give Obama the benefit of the doubt and count the crickets in the “maybe” camp.

After several seconds of deafening silence, global warming activist Heidi Cullen, who formerly served as a meteorologist for the Weather Channel, attempted to change the subject. Cullen said our focus should be on longer time periods rather than the 10-year period mentioned by Obama. When pressed, however, she contradicted Obama’s central assertion and said warming has slowed, not accelerated.

Several minutes later, Sen. Jeff Sessions returned to the topic and sought additional clarity. Sessions recited Obama’s quote claiming accelerating global warming during the past 10 years and asked, “Do any of you support that quote?”

Again, a prolonged and deafening silence ensued. Neither Cullen nor any of the other experts on the panel spoke a word, not even in an attempt to change the subject.
Ouch! ?Senate global warming hearing backfires on Democrats?
Senator Barbara Boxer?s Own Experts Contradict Obama On Global Warming
Senator Barbara Boxer's Own Experts Contradict Obama On Global Warming - Forbes

And of course this interesting story has been essentially non existent in the MSM or on the warmer religionist blogs and message boards.

Sometimes what is not reported is even more interesting than what is.

Do any of those links have a Video? That needs to go into the FlaCalTenn archives..

Hysterical...