IPCC temp projections

[Dubya]

It has just become very clear that it is you who doesn't know anything about gasses. Your whole thesis is disproven by Jupiter and Saturn...Those two planets have very high temperatures deep within their atmospheres and yet, likely don't have a wisp of so called greehouse gas between them.

It is funny that you post that cartoon as some sort of proof for anything. Even warmers have been trying to distance themselves from it for some time now. Do you really believe that the surface of the earth receives and absorbes more than twice as much energy from the atmosphere than it receives and absorbes from its primary energy source? Do you really believe that?



I am sure that you are unaware that new hypoteses are being presented and at least two of them, unlike the greenhouse hypothesis actually predict accurate temperatures when applied to other planets in the solar system and have been verified via actual empirical evidence in the form of more than 800 experiments. The greenhouse hypothesis is in the midst of its death throes. Sorry to break the news to you.



Mockton is a luke warmer. He, and those like him believe in the magic but just believe that the magic is weaker than full blown warmist wackos. The fact is that there is no greenhouse effect. There is an atmospheric thermal effect which is much greater than the greenhouse effect, but it isn't dependent on the composition of the atmosphere to any degree greater than any particular gasses contribution to the total volume of that atmosphere.



This new hypothesis has been proven in via more than 800 experiments while your hypothesis has yet to have even the smallest bit of empirical evidence attatched to it.



You have pointed it out, but you can't begin to prove it. Are you even aware that the greenhouse effect has never been measured or even mathematically modeled?

Find an old textbook before a fool like you was born and discover they used the same charts for the Earth's energy budget that you are too dumb to understand!

The rest of what you have to say isn't even worth discussing. If you can't understand the most basic things and refuse to learn, you aren't worth wasting time with. You're just a moron who can't even understand what the greenhouse effect is. The knowledge about it predates everyone who lives on Earth, fool!

Yeah, how about that 2nd law of Thermodynamics there, perpetual motion machine man.

That's just more science you need to study, because it has nothing to do with it.

Oh, but I forgot, we have a geologist here who doesn't believe greenhouse gases can absorb infrared radiation. Somewhere in that geology course, they had to touch on the subject of the Earth's energy budget or did you skip that class?

You still haven't told me why a petroleum geologists would be interested in Invertebrate Paleontology.

 

[westwall]

Find an old textbook before a fool like you was born and discover they used the same charts for the Earth's energy budget that you are too dumb to understand!

The rest of what you have to say isn't even worth discussing. If you can't understand the most basic things and refuse to learn, you aren't worth wasting time with. You're just a moron who can't even understand what the greenhouse effect is. The knowledge about it predates everyone who lives on Earth, fool!

Yeah, how about that 2nd law of Thermodynamics there, perpetual motion machine man.

That's just more science you need to study, because it has nothing to do with it.

Oh, but I forgot, we have a geologist here who doesn't believe greenhouse gases can absorb infrared radiation. Somewhere in that geology course, they had to touch on the subject of the Earth's energy budget or did you skip that class?

You still haven't told me why a petroleum geologists would be interested in Invertebrate Paleontology.

Really? So, tell the class how you generate more energy than you put into the system without doing work.

 

[Dubya]

Yeah, how about that 2nd law of Thermodynamics there, perpetual motion machine man.

That's just more science you need to study, because it has nothing to do with it.

Oh, but I forgot, we have a geologist here who doesn't believe greenhouse gases can absorb infrared radiation. Somewhere in that geology course, they had to touch on the subject of the Earth's energy budget or did you skip that class?

You still haven't told me why a petroleum geologists would be interested in Invertebrate Paleontology.

Really? So, tell the class how you generate more energy than you put into the system without doing work.

I'm talking to someone who claims to be a scientist and can't even read a chart.

You aren't generating energy, it's an energy balance chart. If you add the energy the Earth's surface receives from all sources, it equals the energy leaving the Earth's surface. If you add up the energy coming into the atmosphere from the sun, it equals the energy leaving the Earth.

Do I have to walk you through the second grade arthmetic to prove it?

 

[SSDD]

It can be proven with Physics, because if it didn't, the average global temperature would be less than -30 degree C. It's also been measured on other planets, because planets without greenhouse gases in their atmosphere don't get back radiation. Why is the global temperature on Venus more than on Mercury? If the Earth had a atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen, it wouldn't get back radiation, because nitrogen and oxygen can't absorb infrared radiation and radiate it back.

Are you saying that it can be proven with physics that the surface of the earth receives and absorbes twice as much energy from the atmosphere than it does from the sun?

Is that what you are saying? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Didn't you notice the planet was radiating about twice as much energy as it received, too?

I noticed that is what your cartoon says. Tell me, where do you think that extra energy beyond what we receive from the sun comes from considering that the first law of thermodynamics states quite clearly that energy can not be created. If it isn't coming from the sun, where is it coming from?

This science predates anyone living on Earth and only idiots doubt it.

Actually the pseudoscience you are espousing dates back to the paper your cartoon comes from.

You aren't taking on AGW, you are taking on very basic science that's been accepted for well over a hundred years. That's why you are called flat earthers.

Funny you should mention flat earthers. I don't guess that you are aware that your cartoon is literally based on a flat earth. Not only is the earth your cartoon depicts flat, it doesn't rotate and has no night and day cycles. It depicts the earth as a flat disk that is irradiated 24/7 by solar radiation that is 1/4 of the actual amount of sunlight coming in. If the model doesn't depict a realistic earth, how do you think it can serve as a basis for predicting the climate of the real earth?

You have been hoaxed and are light years away from getting a clue. Sad guy, very sad.

 

[SSDD]

That's just more science you need to study, because it has nothing to do with it.

Oh, but I forgot, we have a geologist here who doesn't believe greenhouse gases can absorb infrared radiation. Somewhere in that geology course, they had to touch on the subject of the Earth's energy budget or did you skip that class?

You still haven't told me why a petroleum geologists would be interested in Invertebrate Paleontology.

Who is saying that the so called greenhouse gasses don't absorb radiation? What do you think they do with it once they absorb it? Try answering a question on your own for once. What happens to the radiation absorbed by the so called greenhouse gasses?

 

[SSDD]

You aren't generating energy, it's an energy balance chart. If you add the energy the Earth's surface receives from all sources, it equals the energy leaving the Earth's surface. If you add up the energy coming into the atmosphere from the sun, it equals the energy leaving the Earth.

Do I have to walk you through the second grade arthmetic to prove it?

Look at your chart dubya. See that 168 coming in from the sun being absorbed by the surface of the earth? That's it. According to your cartoon, that 168 is all that the earth absorbs from the sun. According to the first law of thermodynamics, you can't create energy so that 168 is all you have to work with . If the earth were a perfect radiator, which it isn't, the most you could radiate would be that 168 that you received from the sun. Are you really stupid enough to believe that it is possible to double the energy being delivered to a system by radiating energy back to the source of the radiation? Do you believe that you could set up a 168 watt heater in your house, surround it with reflectors and somehow get 324 watts out of it that you don't pay your power company for?

Now look at your cartoon....168 being absorbed by the sun.....492 being radiated from the surface of the earth. Where do you believe that extra 324 radiating from the surface of the earth is coming from? Do you really believe it is possible for a surface to radiate more than twice as much energy as it recieves? If it is possible, why don't we use that technology to heat our homes? 168 watts in, 324 watts out. If that were possible, we would have no energy worries.

 

[Dubya]

You aren't generating energy, it's an energy balance chart. If you add the energy the Earth's surface receives from all sources, it equals the energy leaving the Earth's surface. If you add up the energy coming into the atmosphere from the sun, it equals the energy leaving the Earth.

Do I have to walk you through the second grade arthmetic to prove it?

Look at your chart dubya. See that 168 coming in from the sun being absorbed by the surface of the earth? That's it. According to your cartoon, that 168 is all that the earth absorbs from the sun. According to the first law of thermodynamics, you can't create energy so that 168 is all you have to work with . If the earth were a perfect radiator, which it isn't, the most you could radiate would be that 168 that you received from the sun. Are you really stupid enough to believe that it is possible to double the energy being delivered to a system by radiating energy back to the source of the radiation? Do you believe that you could set up a 168 watt heater in your house, surround it with reflectors and somehow get 324 watts out of it that you don't pay your power company for?

Now look at your cartoon....168 being absorbed by the sun.....492 being radiated from the surface of the earth. Where do you believe that extra 324 radiating from the surface of the earth is coming from? Do you really believe it is possible for a surface to radiate more than twice as much energy as it recieves? If it is possible, why don't we use that technology to heat our homes? 168 watts in, 324 watts out. If that were possible, we would have no energy worries.

The chart is very simple, when you aren't stupid. It's an energy budget chart that is perfectly in balance and fits the things man has measured on Earth for ages.

All these measurements are in watts per square meter and you read what they are by matching the numbers. The sun sends 342 and the Earth emits 107 and 235.

The Earth's surface absorbs 168 and 324. The Earth's surface gets rid of 350, 78 and 24.

If you add the damn things up they all equal and have to equal or something would just continue to get warmer or colder. The same rule applies to the ingoing and outgoing radiation to the atmosphere. It has to stay equal or it would continue to warm or cool.

It isn't a model, it's a simple diagram of the measurements observed on Earth.

The point is changing those numbers makes other numbers change to maintain it in balance or equality. More clouds reflecting more sunlight, changes the other numbers, like obviously the amount of energy absorb directly from the sun has to change. If you reflect more sunlight with more ice cover or snow, it changes the number to make everything remain equal. More greenhouse gases increases back radiation and the other numbers have to change to compensate.

Now obviously the amount of incoming radiation is only going to slightly change because of long term Milankovitch Cycles, but when it does the other numbers have to change to maintain balance or equality. The outgoing radiation from the Earth has to match the incoming.

The concepts are very simple and have been around for ages. Even the measurements to get these values have become very accurate.

Now, if you don't want to believe there is back radiation from the atmosphere, then you have to explain why the Earth's surface emits so much more radiation than it receives from the sun, because both can be measured very accurately.

Changes in greenhouse gases change that back radiation and change can be either way. When the ice age happened, both incoming solar to the planet and back radiation were reduced with greenhouse gas reduction. The amount of radiation absorbed by the surface directly from the sun was further reduced by ice sheets reflecting more of the sunlight, so that value was higher than the 30 of today.

You can play with the numbers created by a possible change, like an ice age, but changing anything has to make something else change and there are the three simple rules. What goes into the planet, the atmosphere or the Earth's surface has to leave in equal amounts.

 

[westwall]

That's just more science you need to study, because it has nothing to do with it.

Oh, but I forgot, we have a geologist here who doesn't believe greenhouse gases can absorb infrared radiation. Somewhere in that geology course, they had to touch on the subject of the Earth's energy budget or did you skip that class?

You still haven't told me why a petroleum geologists would be interested in Invertebrate Paleontology.

Really? So, tell the class how you generate more energy than you put into the system without doing work.

I'm talking to someone who claims to be a scientist and can't even read a chart.

You aren't generating energy, it's an energy balance chart. If you add the energy the Earth's surface receives from all sources, it equals the energy leaving the Earth's surface. If you add up the energy coming into the atmosphere from the sun, it equals the energy leaving the Earth.

Do I have to walk you through the second grade arthmetic to prove it?

I can read the chart fine. I'm asking you to demonstrate how you are able to violate a fundamental physical Law. Where oh where does the extra energy come from? You are not doing any type of work to add into the system so how are you adding energy into the system without it?

 

[Dubya]

Really? So, tell the class how you generate more energy than you put into the system without doing work.

I'm talking to someone who claims to be a scientist and can't even read a chart.

You aren't generating energy, it's an energy balance chart. If you add the energy the Earth's surface receives from all sources, it equals the energy leaving the Earth's surface. If you add up the energy coming into the atmosphere from the sun, it equals the energy leaving the Earth.

Do I have to walk you through the second grade arthmetic to prove it?

I can read the chart fine. I'm asking you to demonstrate how you are able to violate a fundamental physical Law. Where oh where does the extra energy come from? You are not doing any type of work to add into the system so how are you adding energy into the system without it?

There is no extra energy, so you can't be reading the chart fine. As I said the surface of the Earth, the atmosphere and the planet itself has exactly the same amount of energy going in as coming out.

It's just common sense that some energy coming in from the sun gets reflected from clouds or is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It's just common sense that the absorbed energy will go in all directions, so some will radiate back to space. The light that hits the ground and isn't reflected is changed to infrared, so the infrared keeps reheating the surface of the Earth.

What if mankind did something to change those values and don't pretend he couldn't because for a few billion dollars we know we can put things like SO2 into the stratosphere and reflect more sunlight changing the 77 value. You might not know the exact amount of change it will do to the other values, but you can easily determine if they increase or decrease and all three zones have to reset to a new equilibrium based on how that energy gets there, but you aren't changing the amount of energy the sun gives the planet, so the enter and exit is still going to be 342. The totals in and out of the atmosphere or absorbed or radiated by the Earth's surface have to change being less and that's why it cools the Earth.

It doesn't make a difference if man changed those values, if you notice even a small number like that "30 reflected from the surface" changing, all you have to do is notice the direction and estimate the rate of change. If in 10 years you've lost 6 million square kilometers of June snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere and millions of square kilometers of arctic sea ice, the world will drastically change until it reaches a new equilibrium.

"Oh, no it ain't, I don't want it to" isn't going to change reality and the consequences are already here.

 

[IanC]

Did the IPCC make that chart and those aren't IPCC global temperatures. The IPCC only reports what others do and does no research on it's own. The data doesn't match NCDC data, which is sourced. There is also the obvious question of why someone would logically pick one year as a base period, because any year picked would be cherry picking. That's why they use a base period of 30 years, to keep from cherry picking.

here is the caption again-

Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature (in °C) since 1990 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments. Values are aligned to match the average observed value at 1990. Observed global annual temperature change, relative to 1961–1990, is shown as black squares (NASA (updated from Hansen et al., 2010; data available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/); NOAA (updated from Smith et al., 2008; data available at NCDC: Global Surface Temperature Anomalies and the UK Hadley Centre (Morice et al., 2012; data available at Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets) reanalyses). Whiskers indicate the 90% uncertainty range of the Morice et al. (2012) dataset from measurement and sampling, bias and coverage (see Appendix for methods). The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean near surface temperature change from 1990 to 2015 for models used in FAR (Scenario D and business-as-usual), SAR (IS92c/1.5 and IS92e/4.5), TAR (full range of TAR Figure 9.13(b) based on the GFDL_R15_a and DOE PCM parameter settings), and AR4 (A1B and A1T). The 90% uncertainty estimate due to observational uncertainty and internal variability based on the HadCRUT4 temperature data for 1951-1980 is depicted by the grey shading. Moreover, the publication years of the assessment reports and the scenario design are shown.

anomalies are based on 1961-1990 values, the various datasets are offset to line up at 1990, the start of the comparison. I am not sure where you are confused. how can you compare something without organizing the data in a way in which comparisons are available?

how can you be a climate science supporter if you are against cherry picking? hahahahaha

at the NAS inquiry D'Arrigo said, "you can't make cherry pie without picking cherries" when asked about the choice of proxies used in paleo reconstructions.

I also think you are fooling yourself when you say the IPCC doesnt do any research itself. the lead authors who write the reports have often specifically writen papers which were neccessary to bolster or rebut statements in the IPCC documents. after the last report, AR4, one journal had an issue with 16 papers, cited 35 times by the IPCC. after the AR4 was already released! dont even let me get started on Wahl and Amman's papers that supposedly replicated Mann's reconstruction and rebutted M&M's criticisms. that was a complete travesty where papers that ended up being rejected were still used by the IPCC despite violations of the regulations neccessary for inclusion. it funny how rules can be bent and broken when it is convenient for 'The Cause'.

 

[SSDD]

The chart is very simple, when you aren't stupid. It's an energy budget chart that is perfectly in balance and fits the things man has measured on Earth for ages.

The chart is only believable if you are stupid.

All these measurements are in watts per square meter and you read what they are by matching the numbers. The sun sends 342 and the Earth emits 107 and 235.

The sun sends 342, but according to your cartoon, only 168 is actually absorbed by the surface of the earth. Your cartoon also says that 492 are being emitted by a surface that only absorbs 168. Where do you think the surface is getting that extra 324 from? Do you really believe that the surface absorbs more energy from the atmosphere than it does from the sun?

You said that your cartoon was provable by the laws of physics....which law of physics tells you that a surface can emit more than twice as much energy as it absorbs?

The Earth's surface absorbs 168 and 324. The Earth's surface gets rid of 350, 78 and 24.

According to your cartoon, the surface emits 390, 78, and 24 but after talking to you for a while, it comes as no surprise that you can't even read your own chart, much less understand it and put it into some sort of rational context.

The question again dubya, is where does that additional 324 that you claim the surface is absorbing come from? According to your cartoon, only 168 is being absorbed by the surface. If it were a perfect reflector, the most it could radiate would be 168 since that is all it is absorbing from its only energy source. This may come as a surprise to you, but the atmosphere isn't an energy source.

If you add the damn things up they all equal and have to equal or something would just continue to get warmer or colder. The same rule applies to the ingoing and outgoing radiation to the atmosphere. It has to stay equal or it would continue to warm or cool.

There is more involved here than simply adding up the numbers you have been given. If the numbers don't reflect reality, then no matter how many times you add them up, you aren't going to get an answer that reflects reality.

And when has the earth's energy cycle ever been in balance? It is always either warming or cooling?

It isn't a model, it's a simple diagram of the measurements observed on Earth.

Wrong again. It is the model upon which the AGW hypothesis is founded and it is nothing more than a steaming pile of dung.

According to your cartoon, if you fill a thermos with water heated to some number of degrees below boiling and put on the cap, the mirrored interior surface of the outer flask will re-radiate the energy coming from the hot water back to the inner flask where it will be absorbed and then make the water warmer. That will result in the water radiating more heat than it was already radiating which will result in the outer flask radiating more energy back to the inner flask where it will be absorbed, making the water warmer.

According to your cartoon, that cycle will continue till the temperature of the water that was below boiling will eventually raise above boiling and blow the cap off of the thermos. Do you believe that a thermos can actually raise the temperature of the liquid inside by reflecting energy that the liquid is radiating back into the liquid? Have you ever seen a thermos actually heat up liquids inside?

If you don't believe a thermos can do it, what makes you think the atmosphere can do it? The atmosphere is nowhere near as good an insulator or reflector as a thermos and if a thermos can't do it, how can the atmosphere. You claimed that it was all explainable by physics. Which physics? Which law tells you that you can reflect energy back to an energy source and increase the output of that energy source by adding energy that it has already radiated to its original output?

 

[Dubya]

The chart is very simple, when you aren't stupid. It's an energy budget chart that is perfectly in balance and fits the things man has measured on Earth for ages.

The chart is only believable if you are stupid.

All these measurements are in watts per square meter and you read what they are by matching the numbers. The sun sends 342 and the Earth emits 107 and 235.

The sun sends 342, but according to your cartoon, only 168 is actually absorbed by the surface of the earth. Your cartoon also says that 492 are being emitted by a surface that only absorbs 168. Where do you think the surface is getting that extra 324 from? Do you really believe that the surface absorbs more energy from the atmosphere than it does from the sun?

You said that your cartoon was provable by the laws of physics....which law of physics tells you that a surface can emit more than twice as much energy as it absorbs?



According to your cartoon, the surface emits 390, 78, and 24 but after talking to you for a while, it comes as no surprise that you can't even read your own chart, much less understand it and put it into some sort of rational context.

The question again dubya, is where does that additional 324 that you claim the surface is absorbing come from? According to your cartoon, only 168 is being absorbed by the surface. If it were a perfect reflector, the most it could radiate would be 168 since that is all it is absorbing from its only energy source. This may come as a surprise to you, but the atmosphere isn't an energy source.

If you add the damn things up they all equal and have to equal or something would just continue to get warmer or colder. The same rule applies to the ingoing and outgoing radiation to the atmosphere. It has to stay equal or it would continue to warm or cool.

There is more involved here than simply adding up the numbers you have been given. If the numbers don't reflect reality, then no matter how many times you add them up, you aren't going to get an answer that reflects reality.

And when has the earth's energy cycle ever been in balance? It is always either warming or cooling?

It isn't a model, it's a simple diagram of the measurements observed on Earth.

Wrong again. It is the model upon which the AGW hypothesis is founded and it is nothing more than a steaming pile of dung.

According to your cartoon, if you fill a thermos with water heated to some number of degrees below boiling and put on the cap, the mirrored interior surface of the outer flask will re-radiate the energy coming from the hot water back to the inner flask where it will be absorbed and then make the water warmer. That will result in the water radiating more heat than it was already radiating which will result in the outer flask radiating more energy back to the inner flask where it will be absorbed, making the water warmer.

According to your cartoon, that cycle will continue till the temperature of the water that was below boiling will eventually raise above boiling and blow the cap off of the thermos. Do you believe that a thermos can actually raise the temperature of the liquid inside by reflecting energy that the liquid is radiating back into the liquid? Have you ever seen a thermos actually heat up liquids inside?

If you don't believe a thermos can do it, what makes you think the atmosphere can do it? The atmosphere is nowhere near as good an insulator or reflector as a thermos and if a thermos can't do it, how can the atmosphere. You claimed that it was all explainable by physics. Which physics? Which law tells you that you can reflect energy back to an energy source and increase the output of that energy source by adding energy that it has already radiated to its original output?

What item on that chart doesn't exist on Earth, dumbass? The items have been known to exist for over a hundred years.

You right-wingers completely lack a brain. You listen to the fossil fuel industry and then deny science that been considered fact, long before your fool ass was born. You call it debating AGW and you don't even have the brains to know there is nothing on that chart about AGW. The Earth's energy budget is established science, but you want to pretend the atmosphere doesn't warm the surface of the Earth with back radiation of 324 and only direct sunlight does. How does the Earth stay warm at night? Don't you have the sense to know how stupid your points are? Don't you have the sense to know these things can be measured and most the energy leaving the Earth is infrared radiation and not direct sunlight?

It isn't a model and is a diagram of things observed to contribute to the energy balance on Earth. I told you these diagrams were in textbooks before you were even born. You've just never seen college textbooks. You were asked what things on that chart don't exist and you can't point to anything that hasn't been proven to exist.

 

[IanC]

The chart is very simple, when you aren't stupid. It's an energy budget chart that is perfectly in balance and fits the things man has measured on Earth for ages.

The chart is only believable if you are stupid.

All these measurements are in watts per square meter and you read what they are by matching the numbers. The sun sends 342 and the Earth emits 107 and 235.

The sun sends 342, but according to your cartoon, only 168 is actually absorbed by the surface of the earth. Your cartoon also says that 492 are being emitted by a surface that only absorbs 168. Where do you think the surface is getting that extra 324 from? Do you really believe that the surface absorbs more energy from the atmosphere than it does from the sun?

You said that your cartoon was provable by the laws of physics....which law of physics tells you that a surface can emit more than twice as much energy as it absorbs?



According to your cartoon, the surface emits 390, 78, and 24 but after talking to you for a while, it comes as no surprise that you can't even read your own chart, much less understand it and put it into some sort of rational context.

The question again dubya, is where does that additional 324 that you claim the surface is absorbing come from? According to your cartoon, only 168 is being absorbed by the surface. If it were a perfect reflector, the most it could radiate would be 168 since that is all it is absorbing from its only energy source. This may come as a surprise to you, but the atmosphere isn't an energy source.

If you add the damn things up they all equal and have to equal or something would just continue to get warmer or colder. The same rule applies to the ingoing and outgoing radiation to the atmosphere. It has to stay equal or it would continue to warm or cool.

There is more involved here than simply adding up the numbers you have been given. If the numbers don't reflect reality, then no matter how many times you add them up, you aren't going to get an answer that reflects reality.

And when has the earth's energy cycle ever been in balance? It is always either warming or cooling?

It isn't a model, it's a simple diagram of the measurements observed on Earth.

Wrong again. It is the model upon which the AGW hypothesis is founded and it is nothing more than a steaming pile of dung.

According to your cartoon, if you fill a thermos with water heated to some number of degrees below boiling and put on the cap, the mirrored interior surface of the outer flask will re-radiate the energy coming from the hot water back to the inner flask where it will be absorbed and then make the water warmer. That will result in the water radiating more heat than it was already radiating which will result in the outer flask radiating more energy back to the inner flask where it will be absorbed, making the water warmer.

According to your cartoon, that cycle will continue till the temperature of the water that was below boiling will eventually raise above boiling and blow the cap off of the thermos. Do you believe that a thermos can actually raise the temperature of the liquid inside by reflecting energy that the liquid is radiating back into the liquid? Have you ever seen a thermos actually heat up liquids inside?

If you don't believe a thermos can do it, what makes you think the atmosphere can do it? The atmosphere is nowhere near as good an insulator or reflector as a thermos and if a thermos can't do it, how can the atmosphere. You claimed that it was all explainable by physics. Which physics? Which law tells you that you can reflect energy back to an energy source and increase the output of that energy source by adding energy that it has already radiated to its original output?

you are a horse's ass sometimes SSDD. the only reason you cannot understand the diagram is because you refuse to understand it.

the input matches the output. the pathway of solar energy in to radiation escaping out is complex and filled with 'heat sinks' that change the equilibrium temperatures. the surface is not a 'special' position except that it is important to humans because we live there.

if we were to somehow drop another earth into the same orbit but it was zero degrees celcius at the surface and throughout the atmosphere, and there was no movement in the oceans or air, what would happen? the energy from the sun would come in and be used to heat the surface, the air would become heated and start to convect, a myriad of heat sinks would start filling up, etc. only once near equilibrium was achieved would the output start matching the input.

if you took the fully charged and equilibrated earth and cut off the solar input it would still radiate the same amount until the heat sinks started to empty and the convection started to dwindle.

you point to the temperature of the surface and ignore the fact that it is only an equilibrium point of the system controlled by the whole myriad of factors inside the system. you are ignoring everything except the solar that reaches the surface.


an easy example is a small electric oven for melting gold. by SSDD's reasoning it could never work. the oven at equilibrium is losing just as much energy as it is receiving. yet somehow he thinks it is a violation of the second law, or even a perpetual motion machine.

I dont know whether SSDD's immature thinking is caused by his (dis)ability for thought or just a refusal to give up a cherished viewpoint.


edit-- I am not vouching for the accuracy of Trenberth's diagram, only that there is a possible diagram that summarizes the flow of energy through our planetary system.

 

[SSDD]

What item on that chart doesn't exist on Earth, dumbass? The items have been known to exist for over a hundred years.

Which item doesn't exist? Backradiation doesn't exist. It is a complete fabrication and has never been measured except by cooling the instrument to a temperature far below the ambient temperature. You can not heat a warm object (surface of the earth) with a cool object (atmosphere)

right-wingers completely lack a brain.

It is hard to notice that it is you who remains unable to discuss the topic. You cut and paste your cartoon as if it were from a holy book and don't seem to be able to actually discuss any of what it claims to represent. It would appear that it is you who lacks a thinking brain.

listen to the fossil fuel industry and then deny science that been considered fact, long before your fool ass was born.

I don't believe I have ever spoken to the fossil fuel industry. In case you haven't noticed, the fossil fuel industry is on the AGW bandwagon because there is a ton of money to be made because of all the subsidies, grants, and tax incentives available to those on the wagon.

And "considered" is an important word there as the mechanisms that climate science claim to be the drivers for AGW are only considered to be fact by some and only considered to be fact by them as they have never been proven. The greenhouse effect has never been measured, nor has it ever been mathematically modeled. It is a fantasy.

You call it debating AGW and you don't even have the brains to know there is nothing on that chart about AGW.

That 324 watts per square meter of backradiation is the basis for AGW. Without it, there is no AGW. Again, it is you who seems to be lacking in the brains department. You have obviously posted a cartoon that you don't even begin to understand.

The Earth's energy budget is established science, but you want to pretend the atmosphere doesn't warm the surface of the Earth with back radiation of 324 and only direct sunlight does.

You are either a bald faced liar when you claim to have a background in chemistry, or are the stupidist scientist who ever lived. That the earth has an energy cycle is fact. To claim that we have a handle on it and understand the movement of energy through that cycle is pure fiction. That cartoon doesn't represent the actual energy cycle of the earth any more than the Blondie cartoon in the Sunday comics.

Here is some established science for you. You can not further warm a warm object with a cool object. See the second law of thermodynamics if you can manage to look it up and read all of the words.

How does the Earth stay warm at night? Don't you have the sense to know how stupid your points are? Don't you have the sense to know these things can be measured and most the energy leaving the Earth is infrared radiation and not direct sunlight?

Primarily by the release of stored heat in the ground and oceans. Water vapor does its part as well, but not by backradiation. Look at a coastal region vs a desert. Both have the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere but the coastal region does not warm as much during the day as the desert, and the coastal region cools off much slower at night than the desert.

The energy leaving the atmosphere is radiation. The energy leaving the earth and travelling up through the greater part of the atmosphere is via conduction and convection. Radiation plays only a bit part in the movement of heat through the atmosphere until you reach very high altitude.

isn't a model and is a diagram of things observed to contribute to the energy balance on Earth.

It is a model and backradiation has never been observed from a cool object (the atmosphere) to a warm object (the surface of the earth)

I told you these diagrams were in textbooks before you were even born.

Perhaps since you were born. That cartoon was originally fabricated in 1981. The one you posted has since been updated in an attempt to get the temperatures it predicts to more closely resemble reality. The present version will soon need updating as well as reailty isn't cooperating with it any more than it did with the first version.

You've just never seen college textbooks. You were asked what things on that chart don't exist and you can't point to anything that hasn't been proven to exist.

I am afraid that it is obvious that you have never been to college, for any science based studies anyway. It is clear because of all of the very basic mistakes you make and the fact that you are unable to actually discuss the topic in any sensible way. Look at the difference between your own conversation and someone like IanC or flacalten. They are obviously educated because they aren't restricted to cutting and pasting material and then simply stating that it must be true. They can discuss the material they post in their own words while people like you, and rocks, and rolling thunder never actually discuss the topic because you lack the education required to do so.

If you believe backraditation exists, show me the proof that it has been measured by an instrument that has not been cooled down to a temperature far below the ambient temperature of the air and tell me which law of physics tells you that a cool object can further warm a warmer object.

 

[SSDD]

you are a horse's ass sometimes SSDD. the only reason you cannot understand the diagram is because you refuse to understand it.

Yeah, I can't see the emperor's new clothes either. I thought you were in the camp that believed that CO2 somehow slows the exit of IR into space and that is how it causes some slight bit of warming. Are you telling me now that you actually believe that the surface of the earth absorbs more energy from the atmosphere than it receives from the sun?

easy example is a small electric oven for melting gold. by SSDD's reasoning it could never work. the oven at equilibrium is losing just as much energy as it is receiving. yet somehow he thinks it is a violation of the second law, or even a perpetual motion machine.

Either you aren't nearly as smart as you appear to be or you are very deliberately dishonest. Which is it. What does heating gold have to do with perpetual motion. Perpetual motion would require that the pan full of gold radiate heat back to the oven and further warm it and as a result, have an output greater than the input. According to that cartoon, 168 is the input to the surface of the earth.

dont know whether SSDD's immature thinking is caused by his (dis)ability for thought or just a refusal to give up a cherished viewpoint.

Why do you constantly appeal to the board? Are you so unsure of your own position that you feel the need to get encouragement or support from the members? Don't worry, so long as you are disagreeing with a "denier" you will have your cheering section in the form of folks like rocks, and dubya although why you would desire support from that sort escapes me.

I hold my viewpoint because of the work of people like Claes Johnson, Nikolov and Zeller (whose work by the way has since been further verified by more than 800 repeatable experiments), Bill Gilbert, Dean Brooks, Hans Jelbring, and Roderich Graeff (who has designed and performed the experiments that further verify N&Z's unified theory of climate.

There is disagreement among them over the precise mechanism of the atmospheric thermal effect, but none of them buy into the fantasy of backradiation and when their models are applied to the other known planets in the solar system, they come very close to predicting the observed temperatures there whereas, the model in use by warmists doesn't come close to predicting the observed temperatures of any of the other planets in the solar system with atmospheres.

That being the case, I must wonder why you believe in a model that only works here and doesn't even come close to predicting the temperatures of other known planets when there are several testable THEORIES out there (unlike the greenhouse model that remains an untestable, unfalsifiable hypothesis) that can very accurately predict the temperatures of other bodies in the solar system. That fact alone should be enough to make you ask yourself if perhaps your unwillingness to let go of the AGW hypothesis is due to your own attachment to a cherished viewpoint.

When actual observable, repeatable evidence starts coming in in support of these other theories that flatly state that your own untestable hypothesis is wrong, it is time for rational minds to start seriously questioning their "cherished vewpoints".

- I am not vouching for the accuracy of Trenberth's diagram, only that there is a possible diagram that summarizes the flow of energy through our planetary system.

There are diagrams that summarize the flow of energy through our planetary system and do a very good job at it and not only that, work when applied to other planets unlike trenberth's that doesn't even come close to predicting temperatures on other planets. I gave you a list above of people to check out if you want to see diagrams of energy flows that actually make sense, are testable and verifiable experimentally, and actually work when applied to other planetary systems.

 

[IanC]

Why do you constantly appeal to the board? Are you so unsure of your own position that you feel the need to get encouragement or support from the members? Don't worry, so long as you are disagreeing with a "denier" you will have your cheering section in the form of folks like rocks, and dubya although why you would desire support from that sort escapes me.

I hold my viewpoint because of the work of people like Claes Johnson, Nikolov and Zeller (whose work by the way has since been further verified by more than 800 repeatable experiments), Bill Gilbert, Dean Brooks, Hans Jelbring, and Roderich Graeff (who has designed and performed the experiments that further verify N&Z's unified theory of climate.

constantly appeal to the board? you make me laugh. I called you out on your simplistic thinking because I felt it would be hypocritical of me to ignore your ranting.

why do you think that the solar radiation reaching the surface is meaningful other than as a portion of the full solar input? why do you think that the surface temp is meaningful other than as one of a myriad of equilibrium points along the pathway from input to output? if the equilibrium temperature of the gold melting oven is affected by the pathway and insulating conditions then why are you so adamant that the solar input at the surface tells the whole story?

I dislike the imagery of the Trenberth diagram. it is not obvious that most of the surface IR is stopped in the first few tens of meters, choked off so that only ~65W/m2 gets out and most of that through the 'window'. but that does not excuse your refusal to comprehend that the surface has warmed up through 'heat sink' conditions until it is radiating enough IR to force the energy past the atmosphere into outer space and match the energy out to the energy in. the temperature of the surface is not just a function of solar input, it is also a function of the ability to shed energy.



as far as Johnson and N&Z go, I find their stuff interesting but certainly not totally convincing. Johnson's harmonic re-emission or whatever he calls it is possible I suppose but it doesnt change any of the numbers. he is a little bit wacko in his description of photons but arent they all? N&Z have a 'theory' that uses as many variables as data points and seems to me to be more at risk to make a 'perpetual motion machine' than anything I have brought up. I think you should read up on the mad hungarian if you want a beautiful alternate theory. his is so elegant that it would be wonderful and nobel-worthy if true.

 

[SSDD]

The fact remains that Graef's experiments are bearing out the work of N&Z and Jelbring. Can you point to any experiments at all that bear out the greenhouse hypothesis?

 

[skookerasbil]

Scientific case for man-made global warming fears is dead at US Action News

 

[Samson]

Climate on the planet has changed for the past billion years.

The graph in th OP represents about 10 years.

Extrapolation is ridiculous.

 

[IanC]

Climate on the planet has changed for the past billion years.

The graph in th OP represents about 10 years.

Extrapolation is ridiculous.

I dont think you are quite getting the concept of the diagram. it is a massively simplified description of the current equilibrium of the climate. it is so generic that it probably describes all of the current interglacial period, although I have no real faith in the accuracy of any of the numbers.

as others have brought up before, it does not incorporate the effects of full sunlight, dusk, night and dawn. nor does it describe the different latitudes and the large change in radiation according to temperature (it varies according to the fourth power{T measured in Kelvins}). averaging the sunlight input, ground temperature, convection rates, evaporation and humidity rates, as well as ignoring ocean currents and Hadley cell type air currents, make for a description that doesnt match anywhere on earth but it at least gives us something to start with.


one thing I find interesting is that the tropics remain ice free and at roughly the same temperature even in iceage periods. personally I think the bulk of our research should be done on understanding the tropics because that area is what powers all the climatic processes.