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

[Foxfyre]

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.

Ah now you are back pedaling which generally happens when somebody is talking about stuff they have no clue what they are talking about. You didn't make the point re objects near the same 'absolute temperature'. I was specific about what the temperatures were in my illustration. You got caught making a statement that was flat out false and now are trying to unembarrass yourself. Won't work.

 

[PMZ]

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?

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 of you actually 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 you and some others. 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.

"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."

What policies are you worried about not having adequate scientific support?

 

[PMZ]

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.

Ah now you are back pedaling which generally happens when somebody is talking about stuff they have no clue what they are talking about. You didn't make the point re objects near the same 'absolute temperature'. I was specific about what the temperatures were in my illustration. You got caught making a statement that was flat out false and now are trying to unembarrass yourself. Won't work.

"You got caught making a statement that was flat out false and now are trying to unembarrass yourself."

A absolute lie. I didn't make any statement that was in any way false. You made some statements implying that radiative heat transfer explained what happens to roasts in refrigerators when it doesn't.

 

[Foxfyre]

From the Senate hearings this week: (bolded emphasis mine.)

Judith (Vitter) notes that this is particularly clever, a good way to blunt the “97% consensus” meme being thrown around. Hey, you could put me in that 97%, as I’ve written before. I do believe Mankind plays a small role in heating, mostly through agriculture, ocean pollution, and landfills, when it comes to true global impacts, but the urban heat island effect plays the most part in anthropogenic forcings, meaning it is localized.

The lack of statistically significant warming in the last 15 years is sometimes glossed over with the claim that the global temperature record has a number of examples of no warming (or even cooling) over fifteen year periods. But this claim is disingenuous, because the IPCC presumed radiative forcing of the climate system from increasing CO2 has been at its supposed maximum value only in the last 15 years. In other words, when the climate “stove” has been turned up the most (the last 15 years) is also when you least expect a lack of warming.

It is time for scientists to entertain the possibility that there is something wrong with the assumptions built into their climate models. The fact that all of the models have been peer reviewed does not mean that any of them have been deemed to have any skill for predicting future temperatures. In the parlance of the Daubert standard for rules of scientific evidence, the models have not been successfully field tested for predicting climate change, and so far their error rate should preclude their use for predicting future climate change.

The claim has been made that the extra energy from global warming has mostly bypassed the atmosphere and has been sequestered in the deep ocean, and there is some observational evidence supporting this view. But when we examine the actual, rather weak level of warming (measured in hundredths of a degree C) at depths of many hundreds of meters, it implies relatively low climate sensitivity. Part of the evidence for this result is satellite radiative budget measurements which suggest that more intense El Nino activity since the 1980s caused an apparent decrease in cloudiness, which allowed more sunlight into the climate system, which caused a natural component to recent global warming. Since the global energy imbalance leading to ocean warming since the 1950s is only about 1 part in 1,000 compared to the average rates of solar heating and infrared cooling of the Earth, it should not be surprising that natural climate cycles can cause such small changes in ocean temperature. Even if our ocean temperature measurements of deep warming of hundredths of a degree over the last 50 years are correct, and mostly due to human greenhouse gas emissions, they probably do not support the IPCC’s pessimistic view of future warming.
Warmists Were Eviscerated During Senate ?Climate Change Is Here? Hearing » Pirate's Cove

I took this from the PiratesCove site because they took the time to extract it from all the testimony at the hearing which is almost certainly already available for perusal on the Senate website.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Ah now you are back pedaling which generally happens when somebody is talking about stuff they have no clue what they are talking about. You didn't make the point re objects near the same 'absolute temperature'. I was specific about what the temperatures were in my illustration. You got caught making a statement that was flat out false and now are trying to unembarrass yourself. Won't work.

"You got caught making a statement that was flat out false and now are trying to unembarrass yourself."

A absolute lie. I didn't make any statement that was in any way false. You made some statements implying that radiative heat transfer explained what happens to roasts in refrigerators when it doesn't.

Prove that it doesn't. I have proved that my observations are absolutely spot on by cooling a roast in the refrigerator. I also have had a chemistry class or two AND a physics class or two which you obviously have not.

 

[itfitzme]

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.

See, that is where you throw out actual reasoning. You ignore context for the sake of being argumentative. You demonstrate yourself to be an obnoxious and horrible person, lacking in any sense of consideration and empathy. You lack any solid grasp on objectivity, can't see yourself for the incidiously evil person you really are, succumbing to the very nature of ingroup/outgroup thinking and the actor/observer effect.

Five instances of the second person pronoun, in responding to an objective statement. And, if the response is equally personal, you would be completely oblivious to having started it.

It is the "when I do it, I have a good reason. When you do it, it hurts my feelings" effect. (actor/observer)

In a refrigerator, convection and conduction are everything. They have fans for a reason, to keep the air flowing, force "convection". The effect of radiant energy is so low as to be negligent by comparison to the air flow. It is a closed system and refrigeration depends on the air flowing across the cooling coils, not on radiant energy hitting them.

 

[gslack]

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..

LOL, a post where the only thing discussed was how reasonable, smart, correct, whatever you and I an Are...



ROFL

 

[gslack]

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.

Yes, yes,you are reasonable and because flac agrees with you, and doesn't call you out when you are being a douchebag, you two are reasonable together...

LOL, and when you insult peoples intelligence, play obtuse rather than legitimately respond to others posts, and generally turn into a weasel after you can't concede a point, you are only doing that because you are so perfect and brilliant...

Get over yourselves already..ROFL..

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

With my last ounce of patience here..

1) You did not read my last post.. I gave you the link to the scienceofdoom page that has BOTH the textbook pages that I repeated on USMB AND THE FREAKING TITLE PAGES of the books..

Go to that link -- copy the titles and authors and you'll be able to visit your local university and find the texts. OR you could TRY to find them on Amazon..

2) The excerpts that I just posted are HIGHLIGHTED AND CIRCLED for the appropriate comments on this debate.. Did you not see the HIGHLIGHTS? Or the red circles?

Let me give you an example from the eckhardt textbook...

When different heated bodies with black surfaces are arranged so that they can see one another, every body radiates heat to the others and absorbs heat radiated from the other bodies. The hotter bodies lose more heat to radiation than they absorb. For the cooler bodies the opposite is true. In this way a heat flow from the hotter to the cooler bodies arises......

This statement (and the following math) verifies the following items at issue here...

A) That ALL bodies in radiative heat transfer both emit and absorb.
B) That the emission flow is function of Temp of each body.
C) To calculate NET emission you must subtract the emissions from EVEN COOLER BODIES.

D) No violation of any other law occurs..
E) ALL of the texts and tutorials I've cited say the exact same..

"LET ME OFF THE HOOK" ????? I was never "on the hook"... Please....
The only detail that is left is the definition of "back-radiation".. As I explained, this term is unique to atmos physics and would not appear in a basic thermo text.. But the passage that I just gave you defines multi-directional flow of radiative heat. (not conduction like in the fridge, but due to Electromagnetic propagation of energy like the sun does)

Since all the math and comments in the traditional heat transfer texts talks about radiation from ALL objects (even cooler ones) being BIDIRECTIONAL or MULTIDIRECTIONAL --- this is basis for the coinage of "backradiation"..

That's the debate -- SCIENCE WON --- and NOBODY has even approached a valid critique of what I just said..

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.

What you're witnessing here is a skirmish among skeptics. Skeptics have principles.. I know that would hard for PMZ or GoldiRocks or Mamooth to admit.. I cannot sit idly by while SSDD and PolarBear and GSlacker try to lynch guys like Dr Spencer with crank scientifically invalid assertions.. We are ALL on the same side. You should be interested in the outcome of this PURELY for the reason that Dr. Spencer (or me) or anyone on the skeptic side gets ATTACKED for defending valid science..

I know it's ugly -- but if we ALLOW crank science to be propagated -- YOU and everyone else that's put time into this will be laughed at and mocked..

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.

Believe me --- maintaining credibility amongst the skeptic community is VITAL to having our opinions count.. And you should encourage the outing of junkscience from our side as well as theirs.. Best of wishes.. No hard feelings. But I'm pretty much done with this.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

See, that is where you throw out actual reasoning. You ignore context for the sake of being argumentative. You demonstrate yourself to be an obnoxious and horrible person, lacking in any sense of consideration and empathy. You lack any solid grasp on objectivity, can't see yourself for the incidiously evil person you really are, succumbing to the very nature of ingroup/outgroup thinking and the actor/observer effect.

Five instances of the second person pronoun, in responding to an objective statement. And, if the response is equally personal, you would be completely oblivious to having started it.

It is the "when I do it, I have a good reason. When you do it, it hurts my feelings" effect. (actor/observer)

In a refrigerator, convection and conduction are everything. They have fans for a reason, to keep the air flowing, force "convection". The effect of radiant energy is so low as to be negligent by comparison to the air flow. It is a closed system and refrigeration depends on the air flowing across the cooling coils, not on radiant energy hitting them.

Gee. Who knew? And here I thought the refrigerator fan was to cool the compressor, force outside air through the coils, provide a more uniform temperature inside the appliance, and evaporate the water that forms in the automatic defrosting process, all which is not necessary in small refrigerators that don't have fans at all. All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that a warm roast will warm the environment inside the refrigerator until it cools to the temperature the refrigerator will work to reattain. Because the fan does draw in outside air, though, which provides one of the variables, I don't think you can call a refrigerator a truly closed system.

Is there any reason to believe that on the massively larger scale of the planet Earth, that there are forces that also work to rebalance and reattain temperatures but all factors, including time frames, are on a massively larger scale?

And do you concur with those scientists testifying before the Senate this week, not one of which would say that President Obama's claim that global warming has accelerated in the last 15 years was accurate. Despite the fact that there has been a significant increase in CO2 in locations where it has been measured?

The climate models are not proving accurate again and again and again. Why should we depend on them to direct what our liberties, options, opportunities, and choices will be? The climate models cannot predict even all the variable that exist re warming and cooling inside a refrigerator. Why should they be trusted to predict the future of climate on Planet Earth?

 

[flacaltenn]

If any of the pseudo-science skeptics wants to argue with anything I just posted to FoxFyre. Feel free.

Whatever objections have been made are pretty useless.

1) It's USELESS to try to imply that someone would forge textbooks..

2) It's USELESS to imply that just because you see don't see the term back-radiation in a text, that the words about transfer from ALL bodies and TO all bodies doesn't mean you can't call the flow from a cooler body to a warmer body ---- back-radiation..

3) It's USELESS to assert that objects in thermal equilibrum "stop radiating at each other".. Every textbook cited corrects that misconception.

4) It's USELESS to assert that energy can't flow from a cooler to warmer body as long as the NET flow is in the proper direction...

So --- be a USELESS skeptic if you insist on it.. But I'm not getting tarred and feathered over your stubborness to learn the basic physics of radiative heat flow..

And I'm NEVER gonna sit by and watch a mob of cultish folks who even deny the basic GreenHouse theory try to take down and eat the best and brightest of the anti-AGW crowd..

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW:

The term "GreenHouse Effect" itself is a travesty of science. Doesn't even APPROACH the way the earth is heated.. A greenhouse works by restricting convective flow primarily.. The glass has no ability to selectively filter and absorb long wave IR differently going in than coming out.. THAT's the real GHouse effect.

Some of the choices for terms are AGAIN to dumb this AGW crap for public consumption.

And it's clear that what's been promoted is a fairytale void of rigorous science..

 

[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.

With my last ounce of patience here..

1) You did not read my last post.. I gave you the link to the scienceofdoom page that has BOTH the textbook pages that I repeated on USMB AND THE FREAKING TITLE PAGES of the books..

Go to that link -- copy the titles and authors and you'll be able to visit your local university and find the texts. OR you could TRY to find them on Amazon..

2) The excerpts that I just posted are HIGHLIGHTED AND CIRCLED for the appropriate comments on this debate.. Did you not see the HIGHLIGHTS? Or the red circles?

Let me give you an example from the eckhardt textbook...

When different heated bodies with black surfaces are arranged so that they can see one another, every body radiates heat to the others and absorbs heat radiated from the other bodies. The hotter bodies lose more heat to radiation than they absorb. For the cooler bodies the opposite is true. In this way a heat flow from the hotter to the cooler bodies arises......

This statement (and the following math) verifies the following items at issue here...

A) That ALL bodies in radiative heat transfer both emit and absorb.
B) That the emission flow is function of Temp of each body.
C) To calculate NET emission you must subtract the emissions from EVEN COOLER BODIES.

D) No violation of any other law occurs..
E) ALL of the texts and tutorials I've cited say the exact same..

"LET ME OFF THE HOOK" ????? I was never "on the hook"... Please....
The only detail that is left is the definition of "back-radiation".. As I explained, this term is unique to atmos physics and would not appear in a basic thermo text.. But the passage that I just gave you defines multi-directional flow of radiative heat. (not conduction like in the fridge, but due to Electromagnetic propagation of energy like the sun does)

Since all the math and comments in the traditional heat transfer texts talks about radiation from ALL objects (even cooler ones) being BIDIRECTIONAL or MULTIDIRECTIONAL --- this is basis for the coinage of "backradiation"..

That's the debate -- SCIENCE WON --- and NOBODY has even approached a valid critique of what I just said..

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.

What you're witnessing here is a skirmish among skeptics. Skeptics have principles.. I know that would hard for PMZ or GoldiRocks or Mamooth to admit.. I cannot sit idly by while SSDD and PolarBear and GSlacker try to lynch guys like Dr Spencer with crank scientifically invalid assertions.. We are ALL on the same side. You should be interested in the outcome of this PURELY for the reason that Dr. Spencer (or me) or anyone on the skeptic side gets ATTACKED for defending valid science..

I know it's ugly -- but if we ALLOW crank science to be propagated -- YOU and everyone else that's put time into this will be laughed at and mocked..

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.

Believe me --- maintaining credibility amongst the skeptic community is VITAL to having our opinions count.. And you should encourage the outing of junkscience from our side as well as theirs.. Best of wishes.. No hard feelings. But I'm pretty much done with this.

I don't want to take the time to research the textbooks because I honestly don't have the interest to read all that stuff. I was hoping you had read what you posted and could highlight the part you thought pertinent to the subject at that time and how it was pertinent to the debate re climate change. (Several have already demonstrated that the quadruplets don't understand and can't explain the big masses of cut and paste that they post.)

But as I said, I am not on your case. I'm just protesting huge masses of cut and pasted material that don't seem to be important in any way to the discussion of whether climate change is occurring and what policies should or should not be adopted.

And I don't HAVE a side in this debate. I am interested in honest science regardless of where it comes from. I have had an open mind from the beginning and still do.

And I still don't want to hand over my liberties, opportunities, options, and choices to idiots or morons or political opportunists who look to take more and more power and/or enrich themselves and who are not adverse to using bogus or flawed science to do it.

So far I have not identified any skeptics who are attempting to do that. I have identified a LOT of AGW religionists who are attempting to do that.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

With my last ounce of patience here..

1) You did not read my last post.. I gave you the link to the scienceofdoom page that has BOTH the textbook pages that I repeated on USMB AND THE FREAKING TITLE PAGES of the books..

Go to that link -- copy the titles and authors and you'll be able to visit your local university and find the texts. OR you could TRY to find them on Amazon..

2) The excerpts that I just posted are HIGHLIGHTED AND CIRCLED for the appropriate comments on this debate.. Did you not see the HIGHLIGHTS? Or the red circles?

Let me give you an example from the eckhardt textbook...



This statement (and the following math) verifies the following items at issue here...

A) That ALL bodies in radiative heat transfer both emit and absorb.
B) That the emission flow is function of Temp of each body.
C) To calculate NET emission you must subtract the emissions from EVEN COOLER BODIES.

D) No violation of any other law occurs..
E) ALL of the texts and tutorials I've cited say the exact same..

"LET ME OFF THE HOOK" ????? I was never "on the hook"... Please....
The only detail that is left is the definition of "back-radiation".. As I explained, this term is unique to atmos physics and would not appear in a basic thermo text.. But the passage that I just gave you defines multi-directional flow of radiative heat. (not conduction like in the fridge, but due to Electromagnetic propagation of energy like the sun does)

Since all the math and comments in the traditional heat transfer texts talks about radiation from ALL objects (even cooler ones) being BIDIRECTIONAL or MULTIDIRECTIONAL --- this is basis for the coinage of "backradiation"..

That's the debate -- SCIENCE WON --- and NOBODY has even approached a valid critique of what I just said..



What you're witnessing here is a skirmish among skeptics. Skeptics have principles.. I know that would hard for PMZ or GoldiRocks or Mamooth to admit.. I cannot sit idly by while SSDD and PolarBear and GSlacker try to lynch guys like Dr Spencer with crank scientifically invalid assertions.. We are ALL on the same side. You should be interested in the outcome of this PURELY for the reason that Dr. Spencer (or me) or anyone on the skeptic side gets ATTACKED for defending valid science..

I know it's ugly -- but if we ALLOW crank science to be propagated -- YOU and everyone else that's put time into this will be laughed at and mocked..

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.

Believe me --- maintaining credibility amongst the skeptic community is VITAL to having our opinions count.. And you should encourage the outing of junkscience from our side as well as theirs.. Best of wishes.. No hard feelings. But I'm pretty much done with this.

I don't want to take the time to research the textbooks because I honestly don't have the interest to read all that stuff. I was hoping you had read what you posted and could highlight the part you thought pertinent to the subject at that time and how it was pertinent to the debate re climate change. (Several have already demonstrated that the quadruplets don't understand and can't explain the big masses of cut and paste that they post.)

But as I said, I am not on your case. I'm just protesting huge masses of cut and pasted material that don't seem to be important in any way to the discussion of whether climate change is occurring and what policies should or should not be adopted.

And I don't HAVE a side in this debate. I am interested in honest science regardless of where it comes from. I have had an open mind from the beginning and still do.

And I still don't want to hand over my liberties, opportunities, options, and choices to idiots or morons or political opportunists who look to take more and more power and/or enrich themselves and who are not adverse to using bogus or flawed science to do it.

So far I have not identified any skeptics who are attempting to do that. I have identified a LOT of AGW religionists who are attempting to do that.

Let me try to motivate you here..

We cannot allow OUR campaign to be based on patently false allegations and bad science.

There have been multiple sources calling some of the most valued LEADERS of our AGW efforts on the carpet for even acknowledging that the GreenHouse effect works the way that it does. It got SOOO bad that 1/2 of the energy from our side of blogosphere is absorbed with correcting all these bad misconceptions before WE ALL GET LABELED as ignorant cranks..

The PRO-AGW side does there policing by PEER PRESSURE and CENSORSHIP.. We need to do ours with solid scientific truth..

Of course you've seen skeptics here on our side trying to use flawed science.

We have one that denies that CO2 is a GreenHouse gas.
We have at least 3 that don't understand how the atmosphere re-radiates energy back to the surface.

And all these guys are gonna be lightning rods to mock and ridicule ANYONE (including us) who doubts the tenets of AGW.. If we don't speak up and out them --- we lose. No matter how good our other arguments might be.. That's why scienceofdoom and WUWT other major AGW folks are trying to counter these dangerous misconceptions.

If only the AGW side DID THAT --- we'd be a lot further along in the REAL understanding of Climate Change.. ClimateGate would have led to REAL REFORM of the publishing process and hysterical hiding of data.

Just like the GOP and DNC --- if they HAD principles.. They would correct some of the most dangerous mistatements of their membership... And show how those statements CONFLICT with the core party principles..

 

[PMZ]

Part 3. First some math for part 2.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_law

We've burned lots of fossil fuels for a 100+ years putting all of the GHGs back in the atmosphere that had been removed and sequestered during the formation of fossil fuels in the Carboniferous period.

The AGW that they created then, they recreate again now. Who would expect anything different?

Only thing is mankind has built an entire civilization around the climate created by their absence. In their returned presence, things are no longer in the right place. Our cities are too close to the rising seas. Our farms are too far from the new parcipitation patterns. Our mobile homes are where the big winds now blow.

While these problems are fully predictable what we can't get a handle on is where the earth is in its transition from the old climate to its new one. Because weather is how the earth handles energy imbalance we know the correction to today's GHG load is underway, but is it 10% or 50% or 90% where it needs to be? And how much worse will burning the dregs of remaining fossil fuels make it?

The problem is that we are facing a hugely expensive future. Rearrange civilization to adapt to a new environment. Accomplish the largest project mankind has ever undertaken. The move to sustainable energy. Move against the tide of mega business trying to squeeze the last dollars of profit from the dregs of remaining fossil fuels.

Our biggest global, political, economic, scientific, business, government challenge ever.

We'll get 'er done because we have to. It won't be a pretty process though.

 

[Foxfyre]

To Flac, when you have non-scientists discussing science, of course they are going to get stuff wrong. Because I know I am capable of being wrong, and I really dislike it when I am, I don't attempt to discuss topics that I don't have a pretty good understanding of. And I still get it wrong now and then. There are those here who think you get it wrong now and then. Are you 100% certain that you don't?

And I don't CARE if I or you or others get some fine points of science wrong when it has nothing to do with the conclusions re whether a) global warming is actually occurring to any signficant degree and b) whether mankind utilizes its energy and resources more constructively trying to change the climate or working to help people adapt to a changing climate.

Now it is true that whether CO2 has ability to radiate heat is pertinent to whether it is classified as a GHG. Since I believe it does have that capability, it is a bonafide GHG. But then you read this from the EPA website:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. In 2011, CO2 accounted for about 84% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.Carbon Dioxide Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA

And yet we know that water vapor is the most prevalent GHG in the atmosphere to the tune of something over 95% of all GHG that exists in the atmosphere. Does the EPA really want us to believe that humans are creating more CO2 than water vapor? Of course the AGW argument is that more water vapor increases the warming effect of more CO2 even as they argue that water vapor is short lived in the atmosphere while CO2 is much longer lived, yadda yadda.

The bottom line is that more than 99% of ALL greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are naturally occurring. Is it not then reasonable to question whether anthropological CO2 production is having a catastrophic effect on the climate or even if it is possibly having a positive effect on the climate?

We know we cannot trust the AGW climate models to predict that.

In my view, the EPA is being blatantly dishonest in order to promote justification for government to take control of more and more of our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities.

If the debate does not include THAT, it really doesn't matter which side is spouting the most scientific nonsense.

 

[PMZ]

With my last ounce of patience here..

1) You did not read my last post.. I gave you the link to the scienceofdoom page that has BOTH the textbook pages that I repeated on USMB AND THE FREAKING TITLE PAGES of the books..

Go to that link -- copy the titles and authors and you'll be able to visit your local university and find the texts. OR you could TRY to find them on Amazon..

2) The excerpts that I just posted are HIGHLIGHTED AND CIRCLED for the appropriate comments on this debate.. Did you not see the HIGHLIGHTS? Or the red circles?

Let me give you an example from the eckhardt textbook...



This statement (and the following math) verifies the following items at issue here...

A) That ALL bodies in radiative heat transfer both emit and absorb.
B) That the emission flow is function of Temp of each body.
C) To calculate NET emission you must subtract the emissions from EVEN COOLER BODIES.

D) No violation of any other law occurs..
E) ALL of the texts and tutorials I've cited say the exact same..

"LET ME OFF THE HOOK" ????? I was never "on the hook"... Please....
The only detail that is left is the definition of "back-radiation".. As I explained, this term is unique to atmos physics and would not appear in a basic thermo text.. But the passage that I just gave you defines multi-directional flow of radiative heat. (not conduction like in the fridge, but due to Electromagnetic propagation of energy like the sun does)

Since all the math and comments in the traditional heat transfer texts talks about radiation from ALL objects (even cooler ones) being BIDIRECTIONAL or MULTIDIRECTIONAL --- this is basis for the coinage of "backradiation"..

That's the debate -- SCIENCE WON --- and NOBODY has even approached a valid critique of what I just said..



What you're witnessing here is a skirmish among skeptics. Skeptics have principles.. I know that would hard for PMZ or GoldiRocks or Mamooth to admit.. I cannot sit idly by while SSDD and PolarBear and GSlacker try to lynch guys like Dr Spencer with crank scientifically invalid assertions.. We are ALL on the same side. You should be interested in the outcome of this PURELY for the reason that Dr. Spencer (or me) or anyone on the skeptic side gets ATTACKED for defending valid science..

I know it's ugly -- but if we ALLOW crank science to be propagated -- YOU and everyone else that's put time into this will be laughed at and mocked..



Believe me --- maintaining credibility amongst the skeptic community is VITAL to having our opinions count.. And you should encourage the outing of junkscience from our side as well as theirs.. Best of wishes.. No hard feelings. But I'm pretty much done with this.

I don't want to take the time to research the textbooks because I honestly don't have the interest to read all that stuff. I was hoping you had read what you posted and could highlight the part you thought pertinent to the subject at that time and how it was pertinent to the debate re climate change. (Several have already demonstrated that the quadruplets don't understand and can't explain the big masses of cut and paste that they post.)

But as I said, I am not on your case. I'm just protesting huge masses of cut and pasted material that don't seem to be important in any way to the discussion of whether climate change is occurring and what policies should or should not be adopted.

And I don't HAVE a side in this debate. I am interested in honest science regardless of where it comes from. I have had an open mind from the beginning and still do.

And I still don't want to hand over my liberties, opportunities, options, and choices to idiots or morons or political opportunists who look to take more and more power and/or enrich themselves and who are not adverse to using bogus or flawed science to do it.

So far I have not identified any skeptics who are attempting to do that. I have identified a LOT of AGW religionists who are attempting to do that.

Let me try to motivate you here..

We cannot allow OUR campaign to be based on patently false allegations and bad science.

There have been multiple sources calling some of the most valued LEADERS of our AGW efforts on the carpet for even acknowledging that the GreenHouse effect works the way that it does. It got SOOO bad that 1/2 of the energy from our side of blogosphere is absorbed with correcting all these bad misconceptions before WE ALL GET LABELED as ignorant cranks..

The PRO-AGW side does there policing by PEER PRESSURE and CENSORSHIP.. We need to do ours with solid scientific truth..

Of course you've seen skeptics here on our side trying to use flawed science.

We have one that denies that CO2 is a GreenHouse gas.
We have at least 3 that don't understand how the atmosphere re-radiates energy back to the surface.

And all these guys are gonna be lightning rods to mock and ridicule ANYONE (including us) who doubts the tenets of AGW.. If we don't speak up and out them --- we lose. No matter how good our other arguments might be.. That's why scienceofdoom and WUWT other major AGW folks are trying to counter these dangerous misconceptions.

If only the AGW side DID THAT --- we'd be a lot further along in the REAL understanding of Climate Change.. ClimateGate would have led to REAL REFORM of the publishing process and hysterical hiding of data.

Just like the GOP and DNC --- if they HAD principles.. They would correct some of the most dangerous mistatements of their membership... And show how those statements CONFLICT with the core party principles..

There are no PRO-AGW scientists. It's an artifact of civilization that is all bad. There are only those who accept, and those who reject, the science that explains and quantifies it to the degree that it can be now.

There are also doers and whiners. The doers go with the science and will ultimately save the whiners from themselves.

It's only a political issue because government plays some necessary roles in finding the least cost way to sustainable civilization. It's not associated with either party or left and right. It's merely the choice between science or faith in miracles.

That's reality. Not very dramatic, just important.

As is always true the strong will carry the weak, the doers, the whiners. The educated, the ignorant. The future, the past.

The stakes may be higher than we've faced in the past but the solution will still be the product of the same people who solve all of mankinds self created issues.

 

[PMZ]

To Flac, when you have non-scientists discussing science, of course they are going to get stuff wrong. Because I know I am capable of being wrong, and I really dislike it when I am, I don't attempt to discuss topics that I don't have a pretty good understanding of. And I still get it wrong now and then. There are those here who think you get it wrong now and then. Are you 100% certain that you don't?

And I don't CARE if I or you or others get some fine points of science wrong when it has nothing to do with the conclusions re whether a) global warming is actually occurring to any signficant degree and b) whether mankind utilizes its energy and resources more constructively trying to change the climate or working to help people adapt to a changing climate.

Now it is true that whether CO2 has ability to radiate heat is pertinent to whether it is classified as a GHG. Since I believe it does have that capability, it is a bonafide GHG. But then you read this from the EPA website:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. In 2011, CO2 accounted for about 84% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.Carbon Dioxide Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA

And yet we know that water vapor is the most prevalent GHG in the atmosphere to the tune of something over 95% of all GHG that exists in the atmosphere. Does the EPA really want us to believe that humans are creating more CO2 than water vapor? Of course the AGW argument is that more water vapor increases the warming effect of more CO2 even as they argue that water vapor is short lived in the atmosphere while CO2 is much longer lived, yadda yadda.

The bottom line is that more than 99% of ALL greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are naturally occurring. Is it not then reasonable to question whether anthropological CO2 production is having a catastrophic effect on the climate or even if it is possibly having a positive effect on the climate?

We know we cannot trust the AGW climate models to predict that.

In my view, the EPA is being blatantly dishonest in order to promote justification for government to take control of more and more of our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities.

If the debate does not include THAT, it really doesn't matter which side is spouting the most scientific nonsense.

Without global warming from GHGs there would probably be no life on the planet. That's one of the reasons that science knows the effects of GHGs and has for a long time.

The issue is what is predictably changing now, and what will be the impact of the resulting change in weather, on our civilization infrastructure.

The answers are, the CO2 that we are dumping into the atmosphere, and the changes that that fact will require in the location of many cities, many farms, and many population centers.

Everything else is just noise.

 

[PMZ]

To Flac, when you have non-scientists discussing science, of course they are going to get stuff wrong. Because I know I am capable of being wrong, and I really dislike it when I am, I don't attempt to discuss topics that I don't have a pretty good understanding of. And I still get it wrong now and then. There are those here who think you get it wrong now and then. Are you 100% certain that you don't?

And I don't CARE if I or you or others get some fine points of science wrong when it has nothing to do with the conclusions re whether a) global warming is actually occurring to any signficant degree and b) whether mankind utilizes its energy and resources more constructively trying to change the climate or working to help people adapt to a changing climate.

Now it is true that whether CO2 has ability to radiate heat is pertinent to whether it is classified as a GHG. Since I believe it does have that capability, it is a bonafide GHG. But then you read this from the EPA website:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. In 2011, CO2 accounted for about 84% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.Carbon Dioxide Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA

And yet we know that water vapor is the most prevalent GHG in the atmosphere to the tune of something over 95% of all GHG that exists in the atmosphere. Does the EPA really want us to believe that humans are creating more CO2 than water vapor? Of course the AGW argument is that more water vapor increases the warming effect of more CO2 even as they argue that water vapor is short lived in the atmosphere while CO2 is much longer lived, yadda yadda.

The bottom line is that more than 99% of ALL greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are naturally occurring. Is it not then reasonable to question whether anthropological CO2 production is having a catastrophic effect on the climate or even if it is possibly having a positive effect on the climate?

We know we cannot trust the AGW climate models to predict that.

In my view, the EPA is being blatantly dishonest in order to promote justification for government to take control of more and more of our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities.

If the debate does not include THAT, it really doesn't matter which side is spouting the most scientific nonsense.

"The bottom line is that more than 99% of ALL greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are naturally occurring"

I believe that 100% "of ALL greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are naturally occurring".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

 

[flacaltenn]

To Flac, when you have non-scientists discussing science, of course they are going to get stuff wrong. Because I know I am capable of being wrong, and I really dislike it when I am, I don't attempt to discuss topics that I don't have a pretty good understanding of. And I still get it wrong now and then. There are those here who think you get it wrong now and then. Are you 100% certain that you don't?

And I don't CARE if I or you or others get some fine points of science wrong when it has nothing to do with the conclusions re whether a) global warming is actually occurring to any signficant degree and b) whether mankind utilizes its energy and resources more constructively trying to change the climate or working to help people adapt to a changing climate.

Now it is true that whether CO2 has ability to radiate heat is pertinent to whether it is classified as a GHG. Since I believe it does have that capability, it is a bonafide GHG. But then you read this from the EPA website:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. In 2011, CO2 accounted for about 84% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.Carbon Dioxide Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA

And yet we know that water vapor is the most prevalent GHG in the atmosphere to the tune of something over 95% of all GHG that exists in the atmosphere. Does the EPA really want us to believe that humans are creating more CO2 than water vapor? Of course the AGW argument is that more water vapor increases the warming effect of more CO2 even as they argue that water vapor is short lived in the atmosphere while CO2 is much longer lived, yadda yadda.

The bottom line is that more than 99% of ALL greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are naturally occurring. Is it not then reasonable to question whether anthropological CO2 production is having a catastrophic effect on the climate or even if it is possibly having a positive effect on the climate?

We know we cannot trust the AGW climate models to predict that.

In my view, the EPA is being blatantly dishonest in order to promote justification for government to take control of more and more of our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities.

If the debate does not include THAT, it really doesn't matter which side is spouting the most scientific nonsense.

Doesn't matter to the politicians and general public.. They just react out of SELF-INTEREST.. Science is not suppose to hold a self-interest.

So it does matter what nonsense gets babbled. That's why we took apart Al Gore's screed. It's like disarming a bomb.

If everyone is just bomb-throwing --- the truth is irrelevent. If you want a society that can fabricate and promote "a good story" --- keep thinking that the science doesn't matter.

You get blasted just by saying that the warming has functionally ceased for at least 12 years. Someone is right --- someone is wrong. Does it matter? In the court of public opinion, you bet your ass it matters.. Does it matter to the BIG picture of the forecast?

Probably not. But it DOES say that all the models used to gin up this farce were woefully lacking.. You can WAIT until the models blow up --- or you can point out NOW where they are lacking -- but you have to get deep into theory to do that. Pro-actively, I'm not willing to be buffeted by surprises in order to test my opinions. You pretty much have to make an investment in understanding..

I did what I did here because I don't want to side with OUR bomb-throwers and pretend they are on my side. Especially not when they target the anti-warmers leaders that I value and admire. Just like I'd expect the hysterical warmers to throw Al Gore under the bus when he abuses and subverts science for the cause..

BTW: We KNOW what the effect of the added Anthro. CO2 is.. IT's been calculated and agreed on by most of both sides. But the imagination of the IPCC and the "sustainable" movement has blown that number out of proportion with their catastrophic theories of how fragile the climate and the earth are.. If this was only about the 1.1degC from doubling CO2 in the atmos --- wouldn't even have made it to the evening news..