Humans Not Responsible for Climate Change: CERN

[daveman]

You state that the increase in CO2 has no effect on the heat of the earth and the atmosphere. A degreed physicist states that you are completely wrong. Now whom should I believe? LOL

Degreed physicists can also be AGW skeptics. Do you believe them?

Of course not. Your sole criteria for judging the validity of anyone's claims is, "Do they agree with me?"

 

[wirebender]

So assuming that the sun is responsible for more energy reaching the earth, and assuming that the GREENHOUSE effect is also contributing to the warming of the atmosphere and ocean by trapping more of that additional energy from the sun?

We're in a world of hurtin' of certain.

Well, at least you are acknowledging that a greenhouse effect is an assumption rather than a known fact. That is an improvement.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm waiting for the Obama Administration to bring a lawsuit against Texas for the fires......too many Greenhouse Gases being released.

 

[k2skier]

weather 101 for neocons...this is basic so kooks and bentwire can comprehend.

When you change any one the basic elements for weather, you get a different outcome. Rather simple really...but oh so hard to predict accurately.

Basic Ingredients for Weather

Building Blocks of Weather

In order to participate rationally in this conversation, you must first understand the basic elements. At the foundation is the fact that weather is not climate. This discussion is about the climate, not the weather. Now, if you care to tie atmospheric CO2 to the weather, by all means do it but do it within the context of the laws of physics. Name the law(s) of physics that support and predict your claims and be prepared to show your math.

Of course, BUT, before you can understand climate you first must have a very good understanding of weather, they go hand in hand.

 

[k2skier]

NASA - What's the Difference Between Weather and Climate?

What Climate Means
In short, climate is the description of the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area.

 

[flacaltenn]

WireBender:

I don't what kind of wires you bend or why you bend them, but you're not coming near even a soldering iron in my electronics lab. Can't believe that you're contending that :

No. You can never RAISE the temperature of the heater especially after you turn it off. With adequate reflectors, you can slow down its rate of cooling but never RAISE its temperature. If you toss a thermal blanket on it, you will immediately reduce its temperature precisely as the second law of thermodynamics predicts. Heat will flow away from the warmer surface of the heater into the cooler blanket. How quickly the temperature of the heater falls after that is dependent on how much heat the blanket is able to trap and HOLD.

You're missing so much here -- it's kinda irretrievable. First off -- let's leave the heater on. WHENEVER you introduce an item with a Thermal resistance between the metal surface and it's "heat sink" which is the air around it -- there will be committant INCREASE in BOTH the temperature of the item with a thermal resistance AND the surface of the radiator. This happens because you are ignoring the TIME dimension of the problem and the difference between POWER and ENERGY. Both the heater surface and the item are capable of storing thermal energy over time. And quite simply that RAISES the temperature of BOTH items OVER TIME. You're mentally stopped-up at the Power flow direction and NOT ALLOWING the system to reach steady-state conditions after a period of time.


Go pile your Audio rack gear on top of one another, block all the access holes and thank me later eh?

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm waiting for the Obama Administration to bring a lawsuit against Texas for the fires......too many Greenhouse Gases being released.

I'm waiting for you to actually say something with some substance. Gonna be a long wait.

 

[Old Rocks]

You state that the increase in CO2 has no effect on the heat of the earth and the atmosphere. A degreed physicist states that you are completely wrong. Now whom should I believe? LOL

Degreed physicists can also be AGW skeptics. Do you believe them?

Of course not. Your sole criteria for judging the validity of anyone's claims is, "Do they agree with me?"

Well, I know of a couple of them. Of course, they also appeared before Congress to state that tobacco was harmless.

 

[wirebender]

Of course, BUT, before you can understand climate you first must have a very good understanding of weather, they go hand in hand.

What we understand about the weather is that with the help of the fastest, most powerful supercomputers on earth, we can't accurately predict the weather even 3 days in advance. With all of the supercomputing power on earth, a whole team of the greatest meterologists on earth can't tell me whether it is going to rain on my back yard this coming saturday.

Warmists cry that weather and climate are not the same and can't be compared because we all know that the weather can't be predicted but they want everyone to believe that the climate can be predicted half a century or more into the future.

As I said, if you want to tie CO2 to the weather, then by all means do it. But do it within the context of the laws of physics.

 

[wirebender]

WireBender:

I don't what kind of wires you bend or why you bend them, but you're not coming near even a soldering iron in my electronics lab.

Orthodontics

You're missing so much here -- it's kinda irretrievable. First off -- let's leave the heater on.

Now you want to leave the heater on? You claimed that you could raise its temperature with it off.

[/quote=flacaltenn]That's correct -- if you look at it from energy in/out standpoint. But if I turn that heater off, it's ability to MAINTAIN a watts/sq meter Power stream would depend on it's capacity to store heat. Fill it with oil and the thermostat won't click on/off as often to maintain temperature. If I toss a thermal blanket over it (PLEASE DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME) I can't change the total energy budget -- but I sure can RAISE the temperature of the heater surface over time. Time RATES of power flow is the difference between power flow and energy capacity. [/quote]

WHENEVER you introduce an item with a Thermal resistance between the metal surface and it's "heat sink" which is the air around it -- there will be committant INCREASE in BOTH the temperature of the item with a thermal resistance AND the surface of the radiator.

True, but you will never be able to coax even 1 watt per square meter out of that heater more than you pay the electric company for and that is where the issue lies. The claim of warmists is that the surface of the earth receives and absorbs almost twice as many watts per square meter from the atmosphere (which is not an energy source) as it does from the sun which is its only energy source. Warmists claim that the greenhouse effect allows the earth to essentially radiate 492 watts per square meter when it is only absorbing 168 watts per square meter from its only energy source. In essence, they are claiming that via the greenhouse effect, the earth is radiating 324 watts per square meter that it isn't paying the power company (the sun) for.

This happens because you are ignoring the TIME dimension of the problem and the difference between POWER and ENERGY. Both the heater surface and the item are capable of storing thermal energy over time. And quite simply that RAISES the temperature of BOTH items OVER TIME. You're mentally stopped-up at the Power flow direction and NOT ALLOWING the system to reach steady-state conditions after a period of time.

You don't seem to be understanding that the "heater" is the element that is radiating the heat. When I am talking about the "heater", I am not talking about the box that the heating element is inside of. You will never, no matter what arrangement of insulators or reflectors you use, be able to coax a single watt of energy out of that element that you dont' have to pay the electric company for and by the same token, the surface of the earth isn't radiating more watts per square meter than it absorbs from the sun and certainly not more than twice the amount than it absorbs from the sun.

We seem to be speaking in different terms and you are most certainly not speaking in any terms that represent the reality of the open atmosphere.

 

[wirebender]

Well, I know of a couple of them. Of course, they also appeared before Congress to state that tobacco was harmless.

So you acknowledge that if enough money is up for grabs, a scientist will say whatever the guy handing out the money wants him to say?

Right now billions upon billions are being handed out to those who will further perpetuate the hoax compared to the 20 million your side claims that big oil has paid skeptics over a period of 10 years? If money can induce bad science, one doesn't need to be a rocket surgeon in order to follow the money trail straight to the bad science.

 

[flacaltenn]

WireBender::

Ok -- you're being honest and playing along.. Let's take one more whack..

True, but you will never be able to coax even 1 watt per square meter out of that heater more than you pay the electric company for and that is where the issue lies. The claim of warmists is that the surface of the earth receives and absorbs almost twice as many watts per square meter from the atmosphere (which is not an energy source) as it does from the sun which is its only energy source. Warmists claim that the greenhouse effect allows the earth to essentially radiate 492 watts per square meter when it is only absorbing 168 watts per square meter from its only energy source. In essence, they are claiming that via the greenhouse effect, the earth is radiating 324 watts per square meter that it isn't paying the power company (the sun) for.

Solar radiance pumps POWER to the surface and atmosphere during the day and is "off" at night.
That's measured in watt/sq meter or equiv. The POWER lost is lost both during the day and the night. Both the surface features (water, land) and the atmosphere STORE ENERGY from thermal heating. To keep the units intact let's use KW-hours as the CAPACITY of the storage.

You know that desert nights at the surface are WARMER if there if is cloud cover. Therefore the discharge rate varies with atmospheric effects. Therefore the loss of POWER in watt/sqmeter can vary.
And the "power company" AINT around at midnight. Yet the surface is still losing heat energy at rates similiar to daytime.

Quoting average numbers like in that graphic therefore ARE horseshit.. What REALLY matters is does the Power intake = Power loss.. Of course it does OVER TIME. But the ability to store ENERGY in KW-hrs allows the discharge to vary. With no CLOUDS -- the surface gets cooler at night because reservoir is being drained. Thus on a DAILY basis -- the solar irradiance during the day has to be GREATER then then all the loss mechanisms for a 24 hour period. It's NOT an equality of POWER -- It's the longer term equality of ENERGY. For the temperature at 12 noon to be the same as yesterday, there's a truly delicate balance between the two power flows.

And a minor change in the rate of loss CAN and WILL produce a change in both the ENERGY stored and the surface temps.

Yes the graphic is probably over-simplified or just plain wrong. I don't have time to figure out which.

But don't confuse power INTO and OUT of your electric car with the RANGE it can travel. If I overdrive it -- it's not gonna make home and back. Nobody (except Ole Rocks) believes that an electric car is a perpetual motion machine..

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I dunno if anyone bothered to notice that the claims made in the OP are just wrong. The Nature Letter the article refers to makes no such claims about the Sun being mostly responsible for the warming trend.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh, it has been pointed out before. Just as the fact that the scientific community was not predicting an imminent ice in the '70s has been pointed out. Makes not a whit of differance. The dingbats just come back four posts later making the very same claims.

 

[wirebender]

You know that desert nights at the surface are WARMER if there if is cloud cover. Therefore the discharge rate varies with atmospheric effects. Therefore the loss of POWER in watt/sqmeter can vary.
And the "power company" AINT around at midnight. Yet the surface is still losing heat energy at rates similiar to daytime.

I am not, and never have argued that water vapor does not absorb and actually hold heat. In fact, I have used exactly that argument on this board. If you look at two locations at roughly the same latitude and altitude; one on the sea shore and one an inland desert, the sea shore will be cooler during the day than the desert and warmer at night than the desert precisely due to water vapor in the air. It has nothing to do with CO2. The differences between the two can be traced directly to relative humidity.

The surface of the earth can never store more energy than it receives from the sun and by the same token, it can never radiate more than it absorbs from the sun. The claim of warmists is that the earth radiates more energy than it absorbs from the sun because the atmosphere is able to magically multiply the amount of energy being delivered to the surface of the earth.

Quoting average numbers like in that graphic therefore ARE horseshit..

Of course those numbers are horseshit. But those numbers are the basis for the fiction of the greenhouse effect. Without those numbers, you have no greenhouse effect and with no greenhouse effect, you have no manmade climate crisis.

What REALLY matters is does the Power intake = Power loss.. Of course it does OVER TIME. But the ability to store ENERGY in KW-hrs allows the discharge to vary. With no CLOUDS -- the surface gets cooler at night because reservoir is being drained. Thus on a DAILY basis -- the solar irradiance during the day has to be GREATER then then all the loss mechanisms for a 24 hour period. It's NOT an equality of POWER -- It's the longer term equality of ENERGY. For the temperature at 12 noon to be the same as yesterday, there's a truly delicate balance between the two power flows.

You keep arguing water vapor but the alarmist claim isn't about water vapor. We both know that water is the only so called greenhouse gas in the atmosphere that can actually absorb and hold heat and I am guessing that we both know that water can do that trick because it is the only natural substance known to man that can transition between its various phases in the open atmosphere.

Of course dry ice (which you like to bring up) can change phases from solid to gas (but not liquid) in the atmosphere but it can not achieve either its sold or liquid state in the atmosphere therefore it can not absorb and retain heat.

The issue is whether or not CO2 has the capacity to raise the temperature of the earth. It can't.

And a minor change in the rate of loss CAN and WILL produce a change in both the ENERGY stored and the surface temps.

But it can not cause the surface to radiate more watts per square meter than it absorbs from its only energy source.

Yes the graphic is probably over-simplified or just plain wrong. I don't have time to figure out which.

Both. It is over simplified and it is just plain wrong, but without the energy flows as described in that graphic, you do not have a greenhouse effect. The energy budget that graphic depicts is tailored explicitly to match the temperature found on earth. If you plug the parameters of another planet (mars for instance) into models built upon the physics that energy budget claims exists, you don't get a net result that even resembles mars. The same goes for any planet within our solar system. It is sheer coincidence that the temperature of earth coincides with that energy budget.

But don't confuse power INTO and OUT of your electric car with the RANGE it can travel. If I overdrive it -- it's not gonna make home and back. Nobody (except Ole Rocks) believes that an electric car is a perpetual motion machine..

But the output can never ever ever.....ever exceed the input. You might be able to extend the range via various gear ratios, but if you measure the output from its energy source, it will never even equal, much less exceed the amount of energy that was initially put into it and the claim of warmists is that the amount of LW radiated out from the surface of the earth is more than twice the amount of LW the surface absorbs from its only power source.

 

[wirebender]

I dunno if anyone bothered to notice that the claims made in the OP are just wrong. The Nature Letter the article refers to makes no such claims about the Sun being mostly responsible for the warming trend.

The warming trend began over 14,000 years ago. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are not responsible either.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, the Milankovic Cycles were. And by them, we should be starting a long slide downhill toward another ice age in about 20,000 years. Not experiancing the rapid warming that we are today.

 

[daveman]

You state that the increase in CO2 has no effect on the heat of the earth and the atmosphere. A degreed physicist states that you are completely wrong. Now whom should I believe? LOL

Degreed physicists can also be AGW skeptics. Do you believe them?

Of course not. Your sole criteria for judging the validity of anyone's claims is, "Do they agree with me?"

Well, I know of a couple of them. Of course, they also appeared before Congress to state that tobacco was harmless.

I said "physicists", not "physicians". Moron.

 

[dilloduck]

Does it really matter ? Eventually the Earth won't exist anyway. Scientists need to concern themselves with space travel or the human species is a goner.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I dunno if anyone bothered to notice that the claims made in the OP are just wrong. The Nature Letter the article refers to makes no such claims about the Sun being mostly responsible for the warming trend.

The warming trend began over 14,000 years ago. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are not responsible either.

Hello.

The Nature Letter the article refers to makes no such claims about the Sun being mostly responsible for the warming trend.

Thread closed