Lets Do the Math on our Atmosphere...

[Billy_Bob]

Here is the Rookie matted Joybeard awesome contribution to science debate, here are ALL of his comments in the thread to salivate over:

Post 15) I wonder if Billy_Bob is so far in the tank that he'll be spouting this crap up to the point his skull is being collected as a decorative fixture for a raider fort. Same goes for the rest of the pro-climate change ecological collapse church members.

29) No believes you're a scientist, has a physics degree or are capable of doing the math in the first place. By not doing it you saved yourself the embarrassment and us the humor.

34) Saying you're a phony is about as substantive as gets. Definitely the the height of facts out of everything in this thread. The biggest mystery is which is sadder - your the lies you tell to others or the lies you tell yourself. You might not even know the difference anymore.

I see that you are trolling and nothing more after all you offer insults, fallacies and dead end statements that have no practical value.

You joine3d in 2014, only have 20 messages total, most of them in two threads in recent days, what triggered you to post this immature stuff?

I believe that when I exposed the modeling for what it was and began to show why the hypothesis was a failure, he went full tilt to defend it..

I could be wrong, but I doubt it..

 

[flacaltenn]

Simple... The in lab experiments show exactly what you say but the atmosphere is not the lab and the observed results do not even add up to what the lab expected. Its an attempt to show how the system itself works and why AGW, as the hypothesis states, does not exist.

There's no "lab" required anywheres for what I just explain.. It's the Chemistry of Co2 from a handbook, the GEOMETRY of atmos layers wrt to the surface, the KNOWN surface emission of LWIR and a computer...

Then you add the absorption/emission data already known and "mix well"... Are you not aware that every credible skeptic that WORKS in climate science acknowledges the "basic" power of CO2 to warm the surface?

They (and I) accept the number of about 1degC per doubling.... That's without all the SUPERPOWERS that the warmers have speculated on previously mentioned.. This is just computation from KNOWN data...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Simple... The in lab experiments show exactly what you say but the atmosphere is not the lab and the observed results do not even add up to what the lab expected. Its an attempt to show how the system itself works and why AGW, as the hypothesis states, does not exist.

There's no "lab" required anywheres for what I just explain.. It's the Chemistry of Co2 from a handbook, the GEOMETRY of atmos layers wrt to the surface, the KNOWN surface emission of LWIR and a computer...

Then you add the absorption/emission data already known and "mix well"... Are you not aware that every credible skeptic that WORKS in climate science acknowledges the "basic" power of CO2 to warm the surface?

They (and I) accept the number of about 1degC per doubling.... That's without all the SUPERPOWERS that the warmers have speculated on previously mentioned.. This is just computation from KNOWN data...

All well and good... But then you deal with factors which are now shown to dampen that basic response in our climactic system which are not what the AGW hypothesis states should happen.

 

[Frannie]

Lets Do the Math on our Atmosphere...

LWIR can not warm our atmosphere directly as it can not interact with anything except water vapor, which can use the energy to warm itself in our atmosphere. IR heaters prove this out in testing as energy in the 12um-16um setting is incapable of warming O2, N2, CO2 and other atmospheric gases. This type of energy must interact with a Black Body or a Grey Body in order to warm anything (solid surface or water).

If you do the math on what little energy can interact with atmospheric gases, the input energy would have to be >5600w/m^2 just to raise the temp 1 deg C absent water vapor.(Roughly 4 times the output of our sun, in this narrow band, at TOA-[Top Of Atmosphere])

You only need to look at the band pass graph of our atmosphere to see why we would need this much energy to warm the mass of the atmosphere.

View attachment 270192

CO2 can not hold energy long enough to warm and it loses energy by collision some 30,000 times to 1 re-emission. Thus the energy is lost a long time before it has the potential to warm the molecule or any other molecule in our atmosphere. Absent water vapor LWIR is transparent to our atmosphere.

Many times I have pointed out our deserts and places of low water content, which have a 40% larger temperature swing and far faster rates of change than other areas of high water content. Most desert areas can cool to 32 deg F at night and be 110 deg F in the day time by 10 am and areas of high water content will get to 55 deg F at night and take until 3pm to reach 90 Deg F (much slower warming due to atmospheric loss and then cool slower due to warmer water in the atmosphere).

IF you note the power curve in the above graphing (green dotted line) you will begin to understand why the atmosphere can not warm with such a small bandwidth of LWIR and what little power it represents when you take that small region into account only.

ON to the math....

Who cares its snowing in the summer in Colorado because a solar minimum is upon us

 

[SSDD]

f you do the math on what little energy can interact with atmospheric gases, the input energy would have to be >5600w/m^2 just to raise the temp 1 deg C absent water vapor.(Roughly 4 times the output of our sun, in this narrow band, at TOA-[Top Of Atmosphere])

Have no idea how you assert most of this... The ENTIRE forcing for 1DegC in surf temp equilibrium is only about 3W/m2.. And that's the amount that BASIC PHYSIC AND CHEMISTRY predicts for a doubling of CO2... And THAT NUMBER is generally accepted by skeptics and warmers alike to be the "naked" power of CO2 WITHOUT the horseshit GW hocus pocus of "accelerations. trigger temperatures, and all positive feedbacks"....

Why are you doing this??

CO2 has no "raw power"...It doesn't hold energy long enough to get warm...and in the atmosphere, it rarely ever gets to emit a photon after it absorbs IR...except for very rare occasions, CO2 loses the energy it absorbs to collisions with other molecules..ususally N2 or O2.

 

[SSDD]

Don't guess we will see the wackos much on this thread....By the way William Happer says that only 1 in a billion CO2 molecules actually gets to emit a photon..

That's all actually accounted for in the EXPONENTIAL nature of CO2 forcing.. You need the TWICE the amount in concentration to get the same 1DegC that you got at the LAST doubling.. It's the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that CO2 gases filtering LWIR are saturated (or near saturation) in MOST of their bandwidth...

So one in a billion -- doesn't really mean a thing... That number CHANGES with the absolute atmos concentration of the gas and the effect is already "baked into" the math....

Sorry...it isn't...and there is no CO2 forcing...there is magic and fairy dust. And that 1 degree used to be 6 degrees...and is in fact less than 1 degree now and trending towards zero or less where it belongs...

 

[SSDD]

Simple... The in lab experiments show exactly what you say but the atmosphere is not the lab and the observed results do not even add up to what the lab expected. Its an attempt to show how the system itself works and why AGW, as the hypothesis states, does not exist.

There's no "lab" required anywheres for what I just explain.. It's the Chemistry of Co2 from a handbook, the GEOMETRY of atmos layers wrt to the surface, the KNOWN surface emission of LWIR and a computer...

Then you add the absorption/emission data already known and "mix well"... Are you not aware that every credible skeptic that WORKS in climate science acknowledges the "basic" power of CO2 to warm the surface?

They (and I) accept the number of about 1degC per doubling.... That's without all the SUPERPOWERS that the warmers have speculated on previously mentioned.. This is just computation from KNOWN data...

So when observation does not jibe with what the textbooks and the consensus say, one or the other is wrong...and it most likely isn't observation....although observers in climate science are often fooled by their instrumentation...

 

[SSDD]

Simple... The in lab experiments show exactly what you say but the atmosphere is not the lab and the observed results do not even add up to what the lab expected. Its an attempt to show how the system itself works and why AGW, as the hypothesis states, does not exist.

There's no "lab" required anywheres for what I just explain.. It's the Chemistry of Co2 from a handbook, the GEOMETRY of atmos layers wrt to the surface, the KNOWN surface emission of LWIR and a computer...

Then you add the absorption/emission data already known and "mix well"... Are you not aware that every credible skeptic that WORKS in climate science acknowledges the "basic" power of CO2 to warm the surface?

They (and I) accept the number of about 1degC per doubling.... That's without all the SUPERPOWERS that the warmers have speculated on previously mentioned.. This is just computation from KNOWN data...

All well and good... But then you deal with factors which are now shown to dampen that basic response in our climactic system which are not what the AGW hypothesis states should happen.

Careful that you don't mention the "you know which" law of "you know what"...or question what appears to be the "skeptics consensus" or you will get the skeptical science treatment for daring to not toe the line ...the censors are on patrol with their red bold fonts turned on.

 

[flacaltenn]

Simple... The in lab experiments show exactly what you say but the atmosphere is not the lab and the observed results do not even add up to what the lab expected. Its an attempt to show how the system itself works and why AGW, as the hypothesis states, does not exist.

There's no "lab" required anywheres for what I just explain.. It's the Chemistry of Co2 from a handbook, the GEOMETRY of atmos layers wrt to the surface, the KNOWN surface emission of LWIR and a computer...

Then you add the absorption/emission data already known and "mix well"... Are you not aware that every credible skeptic that WORKS in climate science acknowledges the "basic" power of CO2 to warm the surface?

They (and I) accept the number of about 1degC per doubling.... That's without all the SUPERPOWERS that the warmers have speculated on previously mentioned.. This is just computation from KNOWN data...

All well and good... But then you deal with factors which are now shown to dampen that basic response in our climactic system which are not what the AGW hypothesis states should happen.

Go after those.. Lawd knows there's ENOUGH THERE.. Like the simplistic climate sensitivity numbers that AMPLIFY this basic math I just discussed. Those numbers have dived by factors of 3 and 4 since 1980... Or all the other mystical fringy elements of climate science theory that attribute SUPERPOWERS to a gas that is nearly saturated in "warming power"..

You really need a Jedi refresher on battling too hard...

 

[flacaltenn]

f you do the math on what little energy can interact with atmospheric gases, the input energy would have to be >5600w/m^2 just to raise the temp 1 deg C absent water vapor.(Roughly 4 times the output of our sun, in this narrow band, at TOA-[Top Of Atmosphere])

Have no idea how you assert most of this... The ENTIRE forcing for 1DegC in surf temp equilibrium is only about 3W/m2.. And that's the amount that BASIC PHYSIC AND CHEMISTRY predicts for a doubling of CO2... And THAT NUMBER is generally accepted by skeptics and warmers alike to be the "naked" power of CO2 WITHOUT the horseshit GW hocus pocus of "accelerations. trigger temperatures, and all positive feedbacks"....

Why are you doing this??

CO2 has no "raw power"...It doesn't hold energy long enough to get warm...and in the atmosphere, it rarely ever gets to emit a photon after it absorbs IR...except for very rare occasions, CO2 loses the energy it absorbs to collisions with other molecules..ususally N2 or O2.

Still clueless evidently..And contrary to any textbook wisdom. Even a simple calculation of the "raw" power of CO2 to change the surface temp equilibrium..

Residency time does not matter. Could be an optical reflector with ZERO residency time and it would STILL bounce photons of heat energy back to surface... Get a clue.. Quit grasping for the flotsam and jetsam... There is a residency time in any gas with a measurable heat capacity. And the re-emissions are frequent enough to get the meager amount of back radiation required for 1degC of surface temp for every doubling of the gas concentration

 

[flacaltenn]

Simple... The in lab experiments show exactly what you say but the atmosphere is not the lab and the observed results do not even add up to what the lab expected. Its an attempt to show how the system itself works and why AGW, as the hypothesis states, does not exist.

There's no "lab" required anywheres for what I just explain.. It's the Chemistry of Co2 from a handbook, the GEOMETRY of atmos layers wrt to the surface, the KNOWN surface emission of LWIR and a computer...

Then you add the absorption/emission data already known and "mix well"... Are you not aware that every credible skeptic that WORKS in climate science acknowledges the "basic" power of CO2 to warm the surface?

They (and I) accept the number of about 1degC per doubling.... That's without all the SUPERPOWERS that the warmers have speculated on previously mentioned.. This is just computation from KNOWN data...

So when observation does not jibe with what the textbooks and the consensus say, one or the other is wrong...and it most likely isn't observation....although observers in climate science are often fooled by their instrumentation...

You're confusing "textbooks" with published theories in papers.. One has an extremely HIGH bar of proof, the other just has to nudge knowledge forward by a few millimeters to get published.. Much harder to argue with the content of textbooks than the latest paper on a new number for Climate Sensitivity..

 

[SSDD]

Still clueless evidently..And contrary to any textbook wisdom. Even a simple calculation of the "raw" power of CO2 to change the surface temp equilibrium..

CO2 has no power to change the surface temperature equilibrium...AGW believers...and those who believe in the magic but just think it is not as powerful fail to consider the fact that if CO2 had any power at all, there would be a tropospheric hot spot..and there would be a decrease of ougoing LW at the top of the atmosphere... CO2 traps nothing more than people who are willing to believe in magic...

Residency time does not matter. Could be an optical reflector with ZERO residency time and it would STILL bounce photons of heat energy back to surface... Get a clue.

I have a clue...and all observations support my position while nothing more than unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models support yours...and a few incompetents who are easily fooled by their instrumentation...

Quit grasping for the flotsam and jetsam... There is a residency time in any gas with a measurable heat capacity. And the re-emissions are frequent enough to get the meager amount of back radiation required for 1degC of surface temp for every doubling of the gas concentration

There is no back radiation required for 0.01 degree..., much less 1 degree....there is a reason that the sensitivity numbers are rapidly trending towards zero...unfortunately the ridiculous radiative greenhouse effect and its bastard stepchild is dying a slow death...it should have been put down when professor woods first proved it was nonsense...

 

[SSDD]

Simple... The in lab experiments show exactly what you say but the atmosphere is not the lab and the observed results do not even add up to what the lab expected. Its an attempt to show how the system itself works and why AGW, as the hypothesis states, does not exist.

There's no "lab" required anywheres for what I just explain.. It's the Chemistry of Co2 from a handbook, the GEOMETRY of atmos layers wrt to the surface, the KNOWN surface emission of LWIR and a computer...

Then you add the absorption/emission data already known and "mix well"... Are you not aware that every credible skeptic that WORKS in climate science acknowledges the "basic" power of CO2 to warm the surface?

They (and I) accept the number of about 1degC per doubling.... That's without all the SUPERPOWERS that the warmers have speculated on previously mentioned.. This is just computation from KNOWN data...

So when observation does not jibe with what the textbooks and the consensus say, one or the other is wrong...and it most likely isn't observation....although observers in climate science are often fooled by their instrumentation...

You're confusing "textbooks" with published theories in papers.. One has an extremely HIGH bar of proof, the other just has to nudge knowledge forward by a few millimeters to get published.. Much harder to argue with the content of textbooks than the latest paper on a new number for Climate Sensitivity..

Both are perfectly capable of being rubbish...and in the world of post modern science, neither has any bar of proof to speak of......and far to often, both do nothing more than promote the standard, unsupportable dogma...Hell, there are textbooks that teach students today to believe that the observer creates reality....and that the laws of physics change based on nothing more than whether something is big or small.....or very small..absolute, unsupportable rubbish...and yet, it is the current dogma...

 

[SSDD]

I love it when the best argument someone can come up with is the obvious and very weak logical fallacy response of posting "funny"...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Simple... The in lab experiments show exactly what you say but the atmosphere is not the lab and the observed results do not even add up to what the lab expected. Its an attempt to show how the system itself works and why AGW, as the hypothesis states, does not exist.

There's no "lab" required anywheres for what I just explain.. It's the Chemistry of Co2 from a handbook, the GEOMETRY of atmos layers wrt to the surface, the KNOWN surface emission of LWIR and a computer...

Then you add the absorption/emission data already known and "mix well"... Are you not aware that every credible skeptic that WORKS in climate science acknowledges the "basic" power of CO2 to warm the surface?

They (and I) accept the number of about 1degC per doubling.... That's without all the SUPERPOWERS that the warmers have speculated on previously mentioned.. This is just computation from KNOWN data...

All well and good... But then you deal with factors which are now shown to dampen that basic response in our climactic system which are not what the AGW hypothesis states should happen.

Go after those.. Lawd knows there's ENOUGH THERE.. Like the simplistic climate sensitivity numbers that AMPLIFY this basic math I just discussed. Those numbers have dived by factors of 3 and 4 since 1980... Or all the other mystical fringy elements of climate science theory that attribute SUPERPOWERS to a gas that is nearly saturated in "warming power"..

You really need a Jedi refresher on battling too hard...

This is precisely where it is going. Without laying the groundwork of how the system works and what amount of power we are talking about, going here is simply window dressing, without the window.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Hell, there are textbooks that teach students today to believe that the observer creates reality....and that the laws of physics change based on nothing more than whether something is big or small.....or very small..absolute, unsupportable rubbish...and yet, it is the current dogma...

LOL..

One of the college level physics texts uses this. When the professor was asked to quantify it in real, scientific terms, he got advisably angry (it was his book). When he was told that this basically means my faith trumps science... Man was this guy pissed!

 

[flacaltenn]

Hell, there are textbooks that teach students today to believe that the observer creates reality....and that the laws of physics change based on nothing more than whether something is big or small.....or very small..absolute, unsupportable rubbish...and yet, it is the current dogma...

LOL..

One of the college level physics texts uses this. When the professor was asked to quantify it in real, scientific terms, he got advisably angry (it was his book). When he was told that this basically means my faith trumps science... Man was this guy pissed!

No.. He was pissed because HIS book is not unique.. It likely matches the same science in most EVERY OTHER Physics book that's a choice...

Don't think you and SSDD appreciate how many Physics majors there are EVERY DAY trying to overturn "old science"... THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS would have jumped RIGHT ON this problem of how radiative heat transfer REALLY WORKS...

But the fact is -- any that have TRIED -- have failed and maybe never told anyone.. Because that part of Thermodynamics hasn't CHANGED in 60 years at least.. If it was that OBVIOUSLY FLAWED, with that massive number of fact-checking underutilized Physics majors and professionals and professors -- you "deniers" could point to ANY ONE OTHER Atmospheric Physics or Radiative Physics textbook that dares to differ...

All you GOT is a conspiracy theory..... And logic and reason says any errors would CERTAINLY be fixed by now if it's obvious to you....

 

[SSDD]

Hell, there are textbooks that teach students today to believe that the observer creates reality....and that the laws of physics change based on nothing more than whether something is big or small.....or very small..absolute, unsupportable rubbish...and yet, it is the current dogma...

LOL..

One of the college level physics texts uses this. When the professor was asked to quantify it in real, scientific terms, he got advisably angry (it was his book). When he was told that this basically means my faith trumps science... Man was this guy pissed!

No.. He was pissed because HIS book is not unique.. It likely matches the same science in most EVERY OTHER Physics book that's a choice...

Don't think you and SSDD appreciate how many Physics majors there are EVERY DAY trying to overturn "old science"... THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS would have jumped RIGHT ON this problem of how radiative heat transfer REALLY WORKS...

But the fact is -- any that have TRIED -- have failed and maybe never told anyone.. Because that part of Thermodynamics hasn't CHANGED in 60 years at least.. If it was that OBVIOUSLY FLAWED, with that massive number of fact-checking underutilized Physics majors and professionals and professors -- you "deniers" could point to ANY ONE OTHER Atmospheric Physics or Radiative Physics textbook that dares to differ...

All you GOT is a conspiracy theory..... And logic and reason says any errors would CERTAINLY be fixed by now if it's obvious to you....

How long dogma has been dogma...or how many people believe or support dogma is irrelevant to the fact that it remains dogma...

As to all those students...and anyone else...history tells us that there isn't much funding, or career opportunity in trying to overturn dogma...once group think sets in, science suffers stagnation till such time as the group dies off....and the younger indoctrinated acolytes of the group die off as well....

Physics is already in the throes of the long stagnation to come...

 

[flacaltenn]

Hell, there are textbooks that teach students today to believe that the observer creates reality....and that the laws of physics change based on nothing more than whether something is big or small.....or very small..absolute, unsupportable rubbish...and yet, it is the current dogma...

LOL..

One of the college level physics texts uses this. When the professor was asked to quantify it in real, scientific terms, he got advisably angry (it was his book). When he was told that this basically means my faith trumps science... Man was this guy pissed!

No.. He was pissed because HIS book is not unique.. It likely matches the same science in most EVERY OTHER Physics book that's a choice...

Don't think you and SSDD appreciate how many Physics majors there are EVERY DAY trying to overturn "old science"... THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS would have jumped RIGHT ON this problem of how radiative heat transfer REALLY WORKS...

But the fact is -- any that have TRIED -- have failed and maybe never told anyone.. Because that part of Thermodynamics hasn't CHANGED in 60 years at least.. If it was that OBVIOUSLY FLAWED, with that massive number of fact-checking underutilized Physics majors and professionals and professors -- you "deniers" could point to ANY ONE OTHER Atmospheric Physics or Radiative Physics textbook that dares to differ...

All you GOT is a conspiracy theory..... And logic and reason says any errors would CERTAINLY be fixed by now if it's obvious to you....

How long dogma has been dogma...or how many people believe or support dogma is irrelevant to the fact that it remains dogma...

As to all those students...and anyone else...history tells us that there isn't much funding, or career opportunity in trying to overturn dogma...once group think sets in, science suffers stagnation till such time as the group dies off....and the younger indoctrinated acolytes of the group die off as well....

Physics is already in the throes of the long stagnation to come...

Moses only had to wait 40 years in the desert.. I think you got a longer wait for "vindication"... It's already been a couple generations for the science you're denying and newer techniques and understanding just keep validating the stuff you're calling "dogma"....

 

[SSDD]

Things moved in quicktime for Moses compared to the time it takes to overcome groupthink... I can see the attraction of wanting to be in the group and believe that you have all the answers...I can also see just how often the group has been wrong over the course of history... I'll pass.

In physics today, the primary task is finding excuses for data that doesn't fit the dogma. Geez guy....physics today is going about the business of making up particles...not because they are observed, but in order to maintain the dogma....or theory if calling it theory makes you feel better. And these ad hoc particles don't have to be constant, but can change their properties and characteristics as "theory" requires... They can defy every observation of reality ever made if that is what "theory" needs....

That isn't sceince...it is alchemy.