Multiple experiments confirm that CO2 lowers absorptivity & emissivity of air

[IanC]

No ian...absorption and emission don't equal warming...the only "chunk" taken out that constitutes actual warming due to absorption is that absorbed by water...and not even all of that because of convection

Again, simply explain where you think the energy goes. If the surface is radiating 400w into the atmosphere but only half comes out the other side of the atmosphere, where did the missing half go?

A simple question, do you have a simple answer?

How much geothermal energy do you think leaves the surface of the earth?

An insignificant amount. Certainty not enough to close the energy input deficit at the surface.

Was that your answer, or are you just tossing out random thoughts?

 

[SSDD]

An insignificant amount. Certainty not enough to close the energy input deficit at the surface.

Interesting...Geothermal conducting through land is estimated to be in excess of 40 terawatts...we really have no idea how much may be entering the oceans. Hardly an insignificant number...further, you are using the "magic" greenhouse hypothesis and its useless averages to determine that 200 wm2 is being absorbed by the earth from the sun...the average amount is about as useless a number as the average global temperature....the fact is that solar flux over most of the earth is considerably more than 200wm/2...hell, here is a site in oregon that has measured 600wm/2 in july...

Solar Energy

Tropical areas can receive more than 900 wm/2 and sub tropical areas can routinely average over 600 wm/2 over the course of a year. You are stuck in the magic of the greenhouse hypothesis and as a result, you can only imagine the magic multipliers the rest of the wacko climate community believes in. There is no magic...there are no multipliers...there is only reality...1300+ wm/w at the top of the atmosphere and we radiate 400 wm/2...your 200 number is meaningless.

 

[IanC]

If geothermal is 2w, and we are looking for 200w, then it is insignificant for our purpose.

Global averages are useless for specific locations but necessary for describing the total inputs and outputs in a simple and understandable way.

Solar input is both periodic (night and day), and varying in intensity (Dawn til dusk). The atmosphere's ability to store and release energy, and smooth out the variation is why the Earth has a warmer average temperature with an atmosphere than without (radiation varies by temperature to the fourth power).

Focusing on small details is fine, but only after the main mechanisms are established. Just like comparing the other planet/atmosphere combinations in our solar system. That will give you a general range of possibilities but there are other details that affect where in that range reality lies.

 

[polarbear]

Additionally, the surface has an emissivity of close to one so the S-B laws can be used. It is radiating at approximately 400w. The measured solar input is less than 200w. Where does the deficit come from if not from energy returning from the stored energy of the atmosphere?

It is inappropriate to use the SB law for a gas. Period. Again...terrribly flawed understanding of physics. magic.

It is inappropriate to use the SB law for a gas. Period. Again...terrribly flawed understanding of physics. magic.
And if somebody would insist on it they would at the very least not use the same emissivity for the solid body and the gas for the radiative heat transfer "back radiation" portion which is supposed to act as an energy booster.
I don`t see on any of the websites an equation where they use ε1 for the solid and ε2 for air.
You can spend all day googling for the emissivity of air with or without x-ppm CO2 and come up empty handed...because none of the warmers even bother using it....instead they use some obscure "average" emissivity for everything that radiates from and to the surface.
I`m pretty sure that 400ppm CO2 in air is not even in the same league as the combustion products of a butane blow torch. Even just ~ 2 inches from it an IR sensor reads only 38 to 40 C but if you clamp a piece of steel in front of the torch you get in excess of 480 C very quickly.
Steel has an emissivity of ~ 0.25 which begs the question just how low is the emissivity of a hot non diluted "greenhouse gas" such as a blow torch flame which in turn has got to be way above air with 400ppm CO2 at 15 C.

 

[IanC]

In response to both SSDD and polarbear above.

It takes energy to put the molecules of air into the gravity field above the surface. A lot of it.

Where did this energy come from? It is energy stored in the atmosphere rather than immediately lost to space. It is 'borrowed', and would be returned if the input was turned off.

Like an oven or a toaster. Neither 'work' until they have come up to temperature. The initial energy is stored, a higher local temperature is achieved at equilibrium, then it releases the stored energy when the power is turned off.

The mass of the atmosphere would have no effect on temperature if it was a solid crust on the surface. Only after it has stored enough energy to turn into a gas and be held aloft in the gravity field does it start to have a warming effect.

Looking at a storage system only after it has reached equilibrium does not tell the whole story. The atmosphere is not as simple as polarbear's pipeline. Air molecules are crashing into the surface, returning energy that originally came from the surface. GHGs add to the total energy of the atmosphere, warming the atmosphere and increasing the return of energy.

This is not rocket science. The mechanisms are clear, even if the actual figures are disputed. I don't care if someone claims the effect of CO2 is smaller than the concensus's claim. I due care if someone denies that the mechanisms exist in the first place.

What?
It takes energy to put the molecules of air into the gravity field above the surface. A lot of it.
1.) there is no such thing as an "air molecule". A molecule is the smallest part of a specific substance comprised of more than 1 atom. There are N2 O2 H2O etc molecules in air but no "air molecules".
2.) All the above gases are lighter than the surface material...."it takes energy..a lot of it to put air into the gravity field above the surface"....Wow I never expected you of all people to come up with that one!
Suppose you uncork a bottle of air at the bottom of a swimming pool...it takes energy to bring that lighter than water/volume bottle down there but no energy to get the air back up and the only reason why it does go up is gravity
According to you the air would plunge into the ocean if you don`t prevent it from doing so with energy and a lot of it.
I am starting to have serious doubts about your knowledge of physics and almost wish I had not seen this reply of your`s
Let me guess...next thing you come up with is that "air-gas molecules" only exist above 0 Kelvin and that is the "lot of energy" that keeps them in the gravity field above the surface.

Here is the original post with your rant about 'air molecule'.

I admit that my memory of what you said was clouded by my mirth at the similarity of your statement to 'Charlie Tuna playing a cello prove he had good taste while his sidekick was saying Starkist wants tuna that taste good, not good taste'. Air molecules vs molecules of air is in the same vein.

Insisting that there is no such thing as an air molecule is petty. And a distortion because I said molecules of air. The central theme of my sentence was that it takes energy to put the mass of air molecules into the gravity field. All of the molecules that comprise the set {air} have mass, therefore my statement encompasses all of them without regard to specific type.

This was yet another example of your quibbles with terminology at the expense of ignoring the underlying idea.

Later in your post you also make a strawman of my position, namely-

According to you the air would plunge into the ocean if you don`t prevent it from doing so with energy and a lot of it.

You said it to incite contempt for my position. In actual fact, many of the constituents of air are dissolved in water. It takes energy to release them from water and put them in a gaseous state.

 

[Crick]

To suggest that nitrogen, oxygen, CO2, et al do not have a thermal emissivity coefficient is absurd and ignorant. The problem with assigning a single value to them is that the rate at which they absorb and emit IR is supremely dependent on their density (temperature, pressure, component density - see Beer's Law). Thus their coefficient is a function of several variables.

See: Beer–Lambert law - Wikipedia

 

[Billy_Bob]

A large group of scientists at many different universities have repeatedly confirmed that the CO2 dragon in the sky is a political myth.
http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

Excuse me? The document to which you linked indicates one author. A group requires a minimum of two elements.

A large group of scientists at many different universities have repeatedly confirmed that the CO2 dragon in the sky is a political myth.
http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

Has the document you linked been subjected to the peer review process? If so:

• In what peer-reviewed science journal was it published?
• When was it published?

I know the answer to both questions: it was not published anywhere at any time. There's a good reason for that, and that reason is noted later in this post.

You are hardly the first person, OP, to citie "Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands" (hereafter referred to as "Determination"). Dr. Nahle has been touted by many who would love to see the global warming issue just go away.

Nahle claims to prove that an increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will result in a cooling effect on the climate system. He does this with idealized calculations of radiative properties of a mixture of gases. Before discussing whether his ideas are valid, I am compelled to point out that his paper is terribly written (I'm referring to the technical merit of Nahle's writing, not the grammar.). For anyone thinking that people can’t get published when they do work that goes against the current understanding, this is a good example of work that could never be published either way! I don’t buy the idea that one won’t get published if one proposes something “against the grain." There is no question, however, that one certainly won’t get published if one is a terrible writer.

In "Determination's" case, the technical writing is so bad, that the equations are hard to follow. [1] Some symbols are not defined, or the symbols are switched to different ones without explanation. Only individuals familiar with the type of derivation Nahle uses can make "heads or tails" of the thing, makes it possible to figure out what was done, but it really shouldn’t be this hard.

The problem with Nahle’s idea:

His whole conclusion hinges on the “correction” factor (Δε) where the emission spectra overlap:

He assumes a mixture of water vapor and CO2. With the equation above he calculates the emissivity of the mixture as...

...yet he compares the emissivity of the mixture with the correction factor for a new mixture that includes oxygen, when his original correction factor did no include (account for) the presence of oxygen in the air [2]....

...and declares the following (slightly inaccurate) conclusion: “The emissivity of the water vapor decreased by 0.0872 units.”

He really means to say that the emissivity of the mixture decreases. Why? Because he has assumed a fixed amount of mass and unintentionally decreased the amount of water vapor in the mixture, something that though it doesn't alter the invalidity of his conclusion, Nahle partially acknowledges this issue:

“The general conclusion is that by adding any gas with total emissivity/absorptivity lower than the total emissivity/absorptivity of the main absorber/emitter in the mixture of gases makes that the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture of gases decreases.”​

The substance of what he's done is replace some H2O molecules with molecules of a lower emissivity. In the case of more CO2, it makes perfect sense that the emissivity of a mixture with fixed mass would decrease, since H2O is a stronger infrared absorber than CO2. But, then he makes the incorrect inference that adding CO2 must therefore cool the planet, which is a gross misrepresentation of...and get this...his own results.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 will not lead to reduced H2O, because the mass of the atmosphere is not fixed.

Producing a more accurate version of his calculation is a bit difficult. The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is small compared to other constituents, but its effect can still be quite large. The more complicated part of the problem comes with understanding the feedbacks. Water vapor is expected to increase with increasing CO2, but it’s not straightforward to build this effect into a simple calculation like the one presented by Nahle. Doing so in a single equation would require many more dubious simplifications.

We have definitely not observed a decrease in H2O, but there has been an obvious increase in CO2. Below is a plot of globally averaged column water vapor from NCEP Reanalysis 2. As we can clearly see, the trend is positive (and statistically significant), consistent with the notion that water vapor increases with increasing CO2.

​

Mean and Trend Line Legend:​

• Monthly mean -- Grey horizontal curve
• Annual mean -- Black curve
• Linear Trend (significant at the 99% confidence level) -- Red line

Notes:

1. Almost certainly, individuals who were taught the math skills, but who don't routinely use them will struggle to follow Nahle's reasoning. I say that because that is the challenge I faced; thus I had to call an acquaintance to ask him about the paper's content. The veritable "alphabet soup" of undefined symbols made it impossible for my math-major son, whom I called first, to tell me what was going on, that even though the math itself, as math in papers of this nature goes, isn't terribly complicated.
   
   The man I called was not familiar with the paper, but he mentioned a colleague who was. What I've shared above is that researcher's analysis, not mine. (The linked CV is a little bit out of date. Dr. Hannah is currently working the Lawrence Livermore Lab working on the ACME project.)
2. Don't ask me how an ostensibly credible scientist begins an analysis such as the one Nahle attempted to preform and doesn't account for oxygen being in the air, but "sure as God made little green apples" he did not.

One of the biggest glaring issues is the size of the atmosphere is directly related to solar wind and its pressure on the ionosphere. The mass of the atmosphere, as anyone who studies atmospheric physics knows, is relatively stable due to earths magnetic field. The position of that mass is determined by pressures applied externally and the rotation of the earth.

During times of low solar wind output, the pressures at the equator is low allowing the rotation to expand the atmosphere above it. During times of high pressures applied to the equator, the atmosphere thins above the equator and the mass expands over the poles. This is the reason that using a static measurement, as the IPCC and others do, of emissivity is a fools errand.

The changing dynamics of the earths atmosphere and angle of incidence can change the input from the sun by 200-400 w/m^2 from hitting the surface. When you start doing the complicated math the AGW models do not do, you find their errors are huge and in the same region of 200-400 w/m^2.

Then we talk water vapor and its major role is disproving the CO2 monster. When the earths atmosphere expands, at the equator and thins above the poles, under low solar influence, heat is rapidly lost in the polar regions as is happening today. The warmth above the equator increases pushing temps poleward. This shift is noticeable today. Water vapor increases above the equator and diminishes above the poles.

If we look at the yearly water vapor numbers they are in direct relation to solar wind output and not necessarily in line with solar cycle intensity.

This mess is not settled... Many attributions to magical CO2 can be shown patently false.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Additionally, the surface has an emissivity of close to one so the S-B laws can be used. It is radiating at approximately 400w. The measured solar input is less than 200w. Where does the deficit come from if not from energy returning from the stored energy of the atmosphere?

It is inappropriate to use the SB law for a gas. Period. Again...terrribly flawed understanding of physics. magic.

It is inappropriate to use the SB law for a gas. Period. Again...terrribly flawed understanding of physics. magic.
And if somebody would insist on it they would at the very least not use the same emissivity for the solid body and the gas for the radiative heat transfer "back radiation" portion which is supposed to act as an energy booster.
I don`t see on any of the websites an equation where they use ε1 for the solid and ε2 for air.
You can spend all day googling for the emissivity of air with or without x-ppm CO2 and come up empty handed...because none of the warmers even bother using it....instead they use some obscure "average" emissivity for everything that radiates from and to the surface.
I`m pretty sure that 400ppm CO2 in air is not even in the same league as the combustion products of a butane blow torch. Even just ~ 2 inches from it an IR sensor reads only 38 to 40 C but if you clamp a piece of steel in front of the torch you get in excess of 480 C very quickly.
Steel has an emissivity of ~ 0.25 which begs the question just how low is the emissivity of a hot non diluted "greenhouse gas" such as a blow torch flame which in turn has got to be way above air with 400ppm CO2 at 15 C.

The answer is density of the object and the ability of the energy wave above it to affect it. In the case of the blow torch the wave length is easily absorbed by the object because of its density and ability to be affected.

The problem, as SSDD pointed out, is that CO2 has insufficient coverage to affect the mass meaningfully. The ratio and mixture in our atmosphere makes the probability that it can affect the surface temperature very negligible due to the source, distance, and ability to affect. Add to this the rapidly changing depth of our atmosphere, due to rapidly changing external forces, and the calculations of what is hitting the earths surface change drastically.

 

[IanC]

A large group of scientists at many different universities have repeatedly confirmed that the CO2 dragon in the sky is a political myth.
http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

Excuse me? The document to which you linked indicates one author. A group requires a minimum of two elements.

A large group of scientists at many different universities have repeatedly confirmed that the CO2 dragon in the sky is a political myth.
http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

Has the document you linked been subjected to the peer review process? If so:

• In what peer-reviewed science journal was it published?
• When was it published?

I know the answer to both questions: it was not published anywhere at any time. There's a good reason for that, and that reason is noted later in this post.

You are hardly the first person, OP, to citie "Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands" (hereafter referred to as "Determination"). Dr. Nahle has been touted by many who would love to see the global warming issue just go away.

Nahle claims to prove that an increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will result in a cooling effect on the climate system. He does this with idealized calculations of radiative properties of a mixture of gases. Before discussing whether his ideas are valid, I am compelled to point out that his paper is terribly written (I'm referring to the technical merit of Nahle's writing, not the grammar.). For anyone thinking that people can’t get published when they do work that goes against the current understanding, this is a good example of work that could never be published either way! I don’t buy the idea that one won’t get published if one proposes something “against the grain." There is no question, however, that one certainly won’t get published if one is a terrible writer.

In "Determination's" case, the technical writing is so bad, that the equations are hard to follow. [1] Some symbols are not defined, or the symbols are switched to different ones without explanation. Only individuals familiar with the type of derivation Nahle uses can make "heads or tails" of the thing, makes it possible to figure out what was done, but it really shouldn’t be this hard.

The problem with Nahle’s idea:

His whole conclusion hinges on the “correction” factor (Δε) where the emission spectra overlap:

He assumes a mixture of water vapor and CO2. With the equation above he calculates the emissivity of the mixture as...

...yet he compares the emissivity of the mixture with the correction factor for a new mixture that includes oxygen, when his original correction factor did no include (account for) the presence of oxygen in the air [2]....

...and declares the following (slightly inaccurate) conclusion: “The emissivity of the water vapor decreased by 0.0872 units.”

He really means to say that the emissivity of the mixture decreases. Why? Because he has assumed a fixed amount of mass and unintentionally decreased the amount of water vapor in the mixture, something that though it doesn't alter the invalidity of his conclusion, Nahle partially acknowledges this issue:

“The general conclusion is that by adding any gas with total emissivity/absorptivity lower than the total emissivity/absorptivity of the main absorber/emitter in the mixture of gases makes that the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture of gases decreases.”​

The substance of what he's done is replace some H2O molecules with molecules of a lower emissivity. In the case of more CO2, it makes perfect sense that the emissivity of a mixture with fixed mass would decrease, since H2O is a stronger infrared absorber than CO2. But, then he makes the incorrect inference that adding CO2 must therefore cool the planet, which is a gross misrepresentation of...and get this...his own results.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 will not lead to reduced H2O, because the mass of the atmosphere is not fixed.

Producing a more accurate version of his calculation is a bit difficult. The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is small compared to other constituents, but its effect can still be quite large. The more complicated part of the problem comes with understanding the feedbacks. Water vapor is expected to increase with increasing CO2, but it’s not straightforward to build this effect into a simple calculation like the one presented by Nahle. Doing so in a single equation would require many more dubious simplifications.

We have definitely not observed a decrease in H2O, but there has been an obvious increase in CO2. Below is a plot of globally averaged column water vapor from NCEP Reanalysis 2. As we can clearly see, the trend is positive (and statistically significant), consistent with the notion that water vapor increases with increasing CO2.

​

Mean and Trend Line Legend:​

• Monthly mean -- Grey horizontal curve
• Annual mean -- Black curve
• Linear Trend (significant at the 99% confidence level) -- Red line

Notes:

1. Almost certainly, individuals who were taught the math skills, but who don't routinely use them will struggle to follow Nahle's reasoning. I say that because that is the challenge I faced; thus I had to call an acquaintance to ask him about the paper's content. The veritable "alphabet soup" of undefined symbols made it impossible for my math-major son, whom I called first, to tell me what was going on, that even though the math itself, as math in papers of this nature goes, isn't terribly complicated.
   
   The man I called was not familiar with the paper, but he mentioned a colleague who was. What I've shared above is that researcher's analysis, not mine. (The linked CV is a little bit out of date. Dr. Hannah is currently working the Lawrence Livermore Lab working on the ACME project.)
2. Don't ask me how an ostensibly credible scientist begins an analysis such as the one Nahle attempted to preform and doesn't account for oxygen being in the air, but "sure as God made little green apples" he did not.

One of the biggest glaring issues is the size of the atmosphere is directly related to solar wind and its pressure on the ionosphere. The mass of the atmosphere, as anyone who studies atmospheric physics knows, is relatively stable due to earths magnetic field. The position of that mass is determined by pressures applied externally and the rotation of the earth.

During times of low solar wind output, the pressures at the equator is low allowing the rotation to expand the atmosphere above it. During times of high pressures applied to the equator, the atmosphere thins above the equator and the mass expands over the poles. This is the reason that using a static measurement, as the IPCC and others do, of emissivity is a fools errand.

The changing dynamics of the earths atmosphere and angle of incidence can change the input from the sun by 200-400 w/m^2 from hitting the surface. When you start doing the complicated math the AGW models do not do, you find their errors are huge and in the same region of 200-400 w/m^2.

Then we talk water vapor and its major role is disproving the CO2 monster. When the earths atmosphere expands, at the equator and thins above the poles, under low solar influence, heat is rapidly lost in the polar regions as is happening today. The warmth above the equator increases pushing temps poleward. This shift is noticeable today. Water vapor increases above the equator and diminishes above the poles.

If we look at the yearly water vapor numbers they are in direct relation to solar wind output and not necessarily in line with solar cycle intensity.

This mess is not settled... Many attributions to magical CO2 can be shown patently false.

Billy Bob has added his usual dose of Cliff Clavin bafflegab. It is not that everything he says is false, occasionally he stumbles into making a good point, but how do you pluck out the nuggets of truth from the pile of bullshit that they are encased in? Why would you bother to try?

 

[IanC]

Additionally, the surface has an emissivity of close to one so the S-B laws can be used. It is radiating at approximately 400w. The measured solar input is less than 200w. Where does the deficit come from if not from energy returning from the stored energy of the atmosphere?

It is inappropriate to use the SB law for a gas. Period. Again...terrribly flawed understanding of physics. magic.

It is inappropriate to use the SB law for a gas. Period. Again...terrribly flawed understanding of physics. magic.
And if somebody would insist on it they would at the very least not use the same emissivity for the solid body and the gas for the radiative heat transfer "back radiation" portion which is supposed to act as an energy booster.
I don`t see on any of the websites an equation where they use ε1 for the solid and ε2 for air.
You can spend all day googling for the emissivity of air with or without x-ppm CO2 and come up empty handed...because none of the warmers even bother using it....instead they use some obscure "average" emissivity for everything that radiates from and to the surface.
I`m pretty sure that 400ppm CO2 in air is not even in the same league as the combustion products of a butane blow torch. Even just ~ 2 inches from it an IR sensor reads only 38 to 40 C but if you clamp a piece of steel in front of the torch you get in excess of 480 C very quickly.
Steel has an emissivity of ~ 0.25 which begs the question just how low is the emissivity of a hot non diluted "greenhouse gas" such as a blow torch flame which in turn has got to be way above air with 400ppm CO2 at 15 C.

The answer is density of the object and the ability of the energy wave above it to affect it. In the case of the blow torch the wave length is easily absorbed by the object because of its density and ability to be affected.

The problem, as SSDD pointed out, is that CO2 has insufficient coverage to affect the mass meaningfully. The ratio and mixture in our atmosphere makes the probability that it can affect the surface temperature very negligible due to the source, distance, and ability to affect. Add to this the rapidly changing depth of our atmosphere, due to rapidly changing external forces, and the calculations of what is hitting the earths surface change drastically.

I couldn't be bothered to discuss the blowtorch example but I will bring up another example.

When I was a kid, most cars had chrome plated door handles. On hot sunny days near noon, with no wind they would get really, really hot.

I don't know why but I can make a guess. Chromium has variable emissivity for different wavelengths of light. It (may) absorb visible light better than IR. Visible light goes in but cannot be emitted at terrestrial temperature. Little IR absorbed or emitted. Conduction away is impaired by the rest of the car being warm. Convection is reduced by lack of wind. All this leads to very hot door handles because all the routes to shed energy are somewhat reduced and the solar input is at a maximum.

Just sayin'. I could be wrong.

 

[polarbear]

To suggest that nitrogen, oxygen, CO2, et al do not have a thermal emissivity coefficient is absurd and ignorant. The problem with assigning a single value to them is that the rate at which they absorb and emit IR is supremely dependent on their density (temperature, pressure, component density - see Beer's Law). Thus their coefficient is a function of several variables.

See: Beer–Lambert law - Wikipedia

To suggest that nitrogen, oxygen, CO2, et al do not have a thermal emissivity coefficient is absurd and ignorant.
And who suggested that what makes up this mixture has no emissivity value????
I said I don`t see them use one in any of their milk-maid "calculations" where the have an average for everything. Hell they even use an average air pressure, temperature and zero moisture to get their molar ppm CO2....which is as idiotic as it can get, because molar ratios don`t vary with temperature or pressure but very conveniently exaggerates the effect it has on their childish Xbox graphic display where everything they model with it turns red hot. It never occurred to you that the total volume and pressure of a gas mixture is the sum of all partial pressures and volumes.
Which means that an increase of CO2, which is a much weaker IR absorber than H2O vapor will drive down the share which is left for H2O to contribute to the total volume at any total pressure...and H2O vapor being a much stronger IR absorber than CO2 being suppressed from being in the vapor phase because it has the lowest vapor pressure of all the aforementioned does explain why the researchers found that it lowers the overall absorption of the mixture.

 

[usmbguest5318]

A large group of scientists at many different universities have repeatedly confirmed that the CO2 dragon in the sky is a political myth.
http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

Excuse me? The document to which you linked indicates one author. A group requires a minimum of two elements.

A large group of scientists at many different universities have repeatedly confirmed that the CO2 dragon in the sky is a political myth.
http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

Has the document you linked been subjected to the peer review process? If so:

• In what peer-reviewed science journal was it published?
• When was it published?

I know the answer to both questions: it was not published anywhere at any time. There's a good reason for that, and that reason is noted later in this post.

You are hardly the first person, OP, to citie "Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands" (hereafter referred to as "Determination"). Dr. Nahle has been touted by many who would love to see the global warming issue just go away.

Nahle claims to prove that an increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will result in a cooling effect on the climate system. He does this with idealized calculations of radiative properties of a mixture of gases. Before discussing whether his ideas are valid, I am compelled to point out that his paper is terribly written (I'm referring to the technical merit of Nahle's writing, not the grammar.). For anyone thinking that people can’t get published when they do work that goes against the current understanding, this is a good example of work that could never be published either way! I don’t buy the idea that one won’t get published if one proposes something “against the grain." There is no question, however, that one certainly won’t get published if one is a terrible writer.

In "Determination's" case, the technical writing is so bad, that the equations are hard to follow. [1] Some symbols are not defined, or the symbols are switched to different ones without explanation. Only individuals familiar with the type of derivation Nahle uses can make "heads or tails" of the thing, makes it possible to figure out what was done, but it really shouldn’t be this hard.

The problem with Nahle’s idea:

His whole conclusion hinges on the “correction” factor (Δε) where the emission spectra overlap:

He assumes a mixture of water vapor and CO2. With the equation above he calculates the emissivity of the mixture as...

...yet he compares the emissivity of the mixture with the correction factor for a new mixture that includes oxygen, when his original correction factor did no include (account for) the presence of oxygen in the air [2]....

...and declares the following (slightly inaccurate) conclusion: “The emissivity of the water vapor decreased by 0.0872 units.”

He really means to say that the emissivity of the mixture decreases. Why? Because he has assumed a fixed amount of mass and unintentionally decreased the amount of water vapor in the mixture, something that though it doesn't alter the invalidity of his conclusion, Nahle partially acknowledges this issue:

“The general conclusion is that by adding any gas with total emissivity/absorptivity lower than the total emissivity/absorptivity of the main absorber/emitter in the mixture of gases makes that the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture of gases decreases.”​

The substance of what he's done is replace some H2O molecules with molecules of a lower emissivity. In the case of more CO2, it makes perfect sense that the emissivity of a mixture with fixed mass would decrease, since H2O is a stronger infrared absorber than CO2. But, then he makes the incorrect inference that adding CO2 must therefore cool the planet, which is a gross misrepresentation of...and get this...his own results.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 will not lead to reduced H2O, because the mass of the atmosphere is not fixed.

Producing a more accurate version of his calculation is a bit difficult. The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is small compared to other constituents, but its effect can still be quite large. The more complicated part of the problem comes with understanding the feedbacks. Water vapor is expected to increase with increasing CO2, but it’s not straightforward to build this effect into a simple calculation like the one presented by Nahle. Doing so in a single equation would require many more dubious simplifications.

We have definitely not observed a decrease in H2O, but there has been an obvious increase in CO2. Below is a plot of globally averaged column water vapor from NCEP Reanalysis 2. As we can clearly see, the trend is positive (and statistically significant), consistent with the notion that water vapor increases with increasing CO2.

​

Mean and Trend Line Legend:​

• Monthly mean -- Grey horizontal curve
• Annual mean -- Black curve
• Linear Trend (significant at the 99% confidence level) -- Red line

Notes:

1. Almost certainly, individuals who were taught the math skills, but who don't routinely use them will struggle to follow Nahle's reasoning. I say that because that is the challenge I faced; thus I had to call an acquaintance to ask him about the paper's content. The veritable "alphabet soup" of undefined symbols made it impossible for my math-major son, whom I called first, to tell me what was going on, that even though the math itself, as math in papers of this nature goes, isn't terribly complicated.
   
   The man I called was not familiar with the paper, but he mentioned a colleague who was. What I've shared above is that researcher's analysis, not mine. (The linked CV is a little bit out of date. Dr. Hannah is currently working the Lawrence Livermore Lab working on the ACME project.)
2. Don't ask me how an ostensibly credible scientist begins an analysis such as the one Nahle attempted to preform and doesn't account for oxygen being in the air, but "sure as God made little green apples" he did not.

One of the biggest glaring issues is the size of the atmosphere is directly related to solar wind and its pressure on the ionosphere. The mass of the atmosphere, as anyone who studies atmospheric physics knows, is relatively stable due to earths magnetic field. The position of that mass is determined by pressures applied externally and the rotation of the earth.

During times of low solar wind output, the pressures at the equator is low allowing the rotation to expand the atmosphere above it. During times of high pressures applied to the equator, the atmosphere thins above the equator and the mass expands over the poles. This is the reason that using a static measurement, as the IPCC and others do, of emissivity is a fools errand.

The changing dynamics of the earths atmosphere and angle of incidence can change the input from the sun by 200-400 w/m^2 from hitting the surface. When you start doing the complicated math the AGW models do not do, you find their errors are huge and in the same region of 200-400 w/m^2.

Then we talk water vapor and its major role is disproving the CO2 monster. When the earths atmosphere expands, at the equator and thins above the poles, under low solar influence, heat is rapidly lost in the polar regions as is happening today. The warmth above the equator increases pushing temps poleward. This shift is noticeable today. Water vapor increases above the equator and diminishes above the poles.

If we look at the yearly water vapor numbers they are in direct relation to solar wind output and not necessarily in line with solar cycle intensity.

This mess is not settled... Many attributions to magical CO2 can be shown patently false.

Billy Bob has added his usual dose of Cliff Clavin bafflegab. It is not that everything he says is false, occasionally he stumbles into making a good point, but how do you pluck out the nuggets of truth from the pile of bullshit that they are encased in? Why would you bother to try?

I gave up on that some time ago. It's why I no longer respond to Billy Bob. I'm just not going to work hard enough, especially with remarks that are technical and that aren't supported with some sort of accurate and credible reference links. Frankly, I wasn't all that comfortable posting what a friend of a friend told me in an email because I couldn't "back it up" peer reviewed documents, which is typically what I provide and expect for highly technical discussion about natural and social science issues.

 

[Crick]

One of the biggest glaring issues is the size of the atmosphere is directly related to solar wind and its pressure on the ionosphere.

This sentence is syntactically illegible. Did you mean to say "that the size of the atmosphere is directly related to solar wind and its pressure on the ionosphere"?

The mass of the atmosphere, as anyone who studies atmospheric physics knows, is relatively stable due to earths magnetic field.

And, of course, since you've never studied atmospheric physics (much less have the degree in atmospheric physics you claimed to have) you wouldn't realize that you should have said GRAVITATIONAL FIELD. The Earth's atmosphere is not magnetic.

The position of that mass is determined by pressures applied externally and the rotation of the earth.

Are you classifying the Earth's gravity as an external pressure? It's not.

During times of low solar wind output, the pressures at the equator is low allowing the rotation to expand the atmosphere above it. During times of high pressures applied to the equator, the atmosphere thins above the equator and the mass expands over the poles. This is the reason that using a static measurement, as the IPCC and others do, of emissivity is a fools errand.

What is the value, averaged arithmetically over time, of a parameter that varies sinusoidally around, say X? Why, it's X you science dimwit.

The changing dynamics of the earths atmosphere and angle of incidence can change the input from the sun by 200-400 w/m^2 from hitting the surface. When you start doing the complicated math the AGW models do not do, you find their errors are huge and in the same region of 200-400 w/m^2.

Models do as much math as the processor cycles available to them can accomplish. A model's not particularly valuable if it takes too long to run. As processor speeds and bit width have increased, the number of included factors has increased. And fast models get run in ensembles through Mointe Carlo trials increasing their value. No model is perfect, but they are infinitely better than anything possessed by those who reject AGW outright. No model has been able to hindcast the 20th century without including AGW. That's a fact repeated here many times and not once ever addressed by you and yours.

You act as if the angle of incidence and the sun's TSI were unknown and unknowable. That, of course, is complete nonsense.

Then we talk water vapor and its major role is disproving the CO2 monster.

Water vapor does not disprove CO2 warming. It's effects and behavior are well known and well considered in even the simplest of GC models.

When the earths atmosphere expands, at the equator and thins above the poles, under low solar influence, heat is rapidly lost in the polar regions as is happening today.

Both poles are heating up and have been for years.

The warmth above the equator increases pushing temps poleward.

Pushing temps? Heat has ALWAYS moved from the equator to the poles you fool.

This shift is noticeable today. Water vapor increases above the equator and diminishes above the poles.

I cannot believe the ignorance you bring to bear here. The poles have been deserts for millions of years. The equator has been a rainforest just as long.

If we look at the yearly water vapor numbers they are in direct relation to solar wind output and not necessarily in line with solar cycle intensity.

Why aren't you looking at global average temperatures wrt solar wind output? Got a correlation there? If so, let's see it.

This mess is not settled... Many attributions to magical CO2 can be shown patently false.

You have yet to falsify ONE with any of the ignorant bullshit you've tried to pass off here.

Why not begin by simply admitting that you do not have a degree in atmospheric physics. That would do a lot to clear the air around here. Folks might even start listening to you - particularly if you were to start posting things you could actually demonstrate were valid ideas vice things you wish were true or things that just popped up in your addled brain.

 

[IanC]

This is Trenberth's 2009 version of the energy budget. I do not vouch for the numbers but you have to start somewhere.

Is it a deception? We know by the S-B equations that the surface 'wants' to lose 396w. We also know that the actual loss is calculated by output minus input, which depends on temperature differential. In this graph that is 396-333=63. Should the diagram only show the net radiation loss to the lower atmosphere? 40w direct loss to space and 23w 'other'.

Now we are left with a solar input surplus. 161-63=98. Most of this is accounted for by thermal and the water cycle, 97w. The 0.9w left over is supposedly warming the surface.

Does this picture make sense? Not if you only consider radiation. But energy has multiple paths it can take, and all routes must be added up.

The surface 'wants' to lose 396w. Is it all in radiation? No, most of it leaves by other pathways. The lower atmosphere 'wants' to lose 333w. Is it all in radiation? No, most of it leaves by molecular collision transfer.

It is misleading of this diagram to portray the full S-B temperature related energy output as radiation because it is actually taking multiple pathways.

While the surface has the capability to produce close the full radiation loss because of its high emissivity, the atmosphere cannot because of its low and 'patchy' emissivity. Indeed, if the atmosphere had a high emissivity, it would not be there at all. It would lose the necessary energy to keep it aloft in the gravity field as quickly as it could be pumped in.

 

[Billy_Bob]

A large group of scientists at many different universities have repeatedly confirmed that the CO2 dragon in the sky is a political myth.
http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

Excuse me? The document to which you linked indicates one author. A group requires a minimum of two elements.

A large group of scientists at many different universities have repeatedly confirmed that the CO2 dragon in the sky is a political myth.
http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

Has the document you linked been subjected to the peer review process? If so:

• In what peer-reviewed science journal was it published?
• When was it published?

I know the answer to both questions: it was not published anywhere at any time. There's a good reason for that, and that reason is noted later in this post.

You are hardly the first person, OP, to citie "Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands" (hereafter referred to as "Determination"). Dr. Nahle has been touted by many who would love to see the global warming issue just go away.

Nahle claims to prove that an increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will result in a cooling effect on the climate system. He does this with idealized calculations of radiative properties of a mixture of gases. Before discussing whether his ideas are valid, I am compelled to point out that his paper is terribly written (I'm referring to the technical merit of Nahle's writing, not the grammar.). For anyone thinking that people can’t get published when they do work that goes against the current understanding, this is a good example of work that could never be published either way! I don’t buy the idea that one won’t get published if one proposes something “against the grain." There is no question, however, that one certainly won’t get published if one is a terrible writer.

In "Determination's" case, the technical writing is so bad, that the equations are hard to follow. [1] Some symbols are not defined, or the symbols are switched to different ones without explanation. Only individuals familiar with the type of derivation Nahle uses can make "heads or tails" of the thing, makes it possible to figure out what was done, but it really shouldn’t be this hard.

The problem with Nahle’s idea:

His whole conclusion hinges on the “correction” factor (Δε) where the emission spectra overlap:

He assumes a mixture of water vapor and CO2. With the equation above he calculates the emissivity of the mixture as...

...yet he compares the emissivity of the mixture with the correction factor for a new mixture that includes oxygen, when his original correction factor did no include (account for) the presence of oxygen in the air [2]....

...and declares the following (slightly inaccurate) conclusion: “The emissivity of the water vapor decreased by 0.0872 units.”

He really means to say that the emissivity of the mixture decreases. Why? Because he has assumed a fixed amount of mass and unintentionally decreased the amount of water vapor in the mixture, something that though it doesn't alter the invalidity of his conclusion, Nahle partially acknowledges this issue:

“The general conclusion is that by adding any gas with total emissivity/absorptivity lower than the total emissivity/absorptivity of the main absorber/emitter in the mixture of gases makes that the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture of gases decreases.”​

The substance of what he's done is replace some H2O molecules with molecules of a lower emissivity. In the case of more CO2, it makes perfect sense that the emissivity of a mixture with fixed mass would decrease, since H2O is a stronger infrared absorber than CO2. But, then he makes the incorrect inference that adding CO2 must therefore cool the planet, which is a gross misrepresentation of...and get this...his own results.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 will not lead to reduced H2O, because the mass of the atmosphere is not fixed.

Producing a more accurate version of his calculation is a bit difficult. The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is small compared to other constituents, but its effect can still be quite large. The more complicated part of the problem comes with understanding the feedbacks. Water vapor is expected to increase with increasing CO2, but it’s not straightforward to build this effect into a simple calculation like the one presented by Nahle. Doing so in a single equation would require many more dubious simplifications.

We have definitely not observed a decrease in H2O, but there has been an obvious increase in CO2. Below is a plot of globally averaged column water vapor from NCEP Reanalysis 2. As we can clearly see, the trend is positive (and statistically significant), consistent with the notion that water vapor increases with increasing CO2.

​

Mean and Trend Line Legend:​

• Monthly mean -- Grey horizontal curve
• Annual mean -- Black curve
• Linear Trend (significant at the 99% confidence level) -- Red line

Notes:

1. Almost certainly, individuals who were taught the math skills, but who don't routinely use them will struggle to follow Nahle's reasoning. I say that because that is the challenge I faced; thus I had to call an acquaintance to ask him about the paper's content. The veritable "alphabet soup" of undefined symbols made it impossible for my math-major son, whom I called first, to tell me what was going on, that even though the math itself, as math in papers of this nature goes, isn't terribly complicated.
   
   The man I called was not familiar with the paper, but he mentioned a colleague who was. What I've shared above is that researcher's analysis, not mine. (The linked CV is a little bit out of date. Dr. Hannah is currently working the Lawrence Livermore Lab working on the ACME project.)
2. Don't ask me how an ostensibly credible scientist begins an analysis such as the one Nahle attempted to preform and doesn't account for oxygen being in the air, but "sure as God made little green apples" he did not.

One of the biggest glaring issues is the size of the atmosphere is directly related to solar wind and its pressure on the ionosphere. The mass of the atmosphere, as anyone who studies atmospheric physics knows, is relatively stable due to earths magnetic field. The position of that mass is determined by pressures applied externally and the rotation of the earth.

During times of low solar wind output, the pressures at the equator is low allowing the rotation to expand the atmosphere above it. During times of high pressures applied to the equator, the atmosphere thins above the equator and the mass expands over the poles. This is the reason that using a static measurement, as the IPCC and others do, of emissivity is a fools errand.

The changing dynamics of the earths atmosphere and angle of incidence can change the input from the sun by 200-400 w/m^2 from hitting the surface. When you start doing the complicated math the AGW models do not do, you find their errors are huge and in the same region of 200-400 w/m^2.

Then we talk water vapor and its major role is disproving the CO2 monster. When the earths atmosphere expands, at the equator and thins above the poles, under low solar influence, heat is rapidly lost in the polar regions as is happening today. The warmth above the equator increases pushing temps poleward. This shift is noticeable today. Water vapor increases above the equator and diminishes above the poles.

If we look at the yearly water vapor numbers they are in direct relation to solar wind output and not necessarily in line with solar cycle intensity.

This mess is not settled... Many attributions to magical CO2 can be shown patently false.

Billy Bob has added his usual dose of Cliff Clavin bafflegab. It is not that everything he says is false, occasionally he stumbles into making a good point, but how do you pluck out the nuggets of truth from the pile of bullshit that they are encased in? Why would you bother to try?

Every one of those 'nuggets' can be shown empirically.

The choice not to go into great depth is the level of understanding of the audience. AGW oversimplifies the actions of our atmosphere in an effort to mislead and create fear.

The reason many of the luke-warmers don't want to try and understand is obvious, what is shown does not fall in line with your beliefs..

 

[Billy_Bob]

One of the biggest glaring issues is the size of the atmosphere is directly related to solar wind and its pressure on the ionosphere.

This sentence is syntactically illegible. Did you mean to say "that the size of the atmosphere is directly related to solar wind and its pressure on the ionosphere"?

The mass of the atmosphere, as anyone who studies atmospheric physics knows, is relatively stable due to earths magnetic field.

And, of course, since you've never studied atmospheric physics (much less have the degree in atmospheric physics you claimed to have) you wouldn't realize that you should have said GRAVITATIONAL FIELD. The Earth's atmosphere is not magnetic.

The position of that mass is determined by pressures applied externally and the rotation of the earth.

Are you classifying the Earth's gravity as an external pressure? It's not.

During times of low solar wind output, the pressures at the equator is low allowing the rotation to expand the atmosphere above it. During times of high pressures applied to the equator, the atmosphere thins above the equator and the mass expands over the poles. This is the reason that using a static measurement, as the IPCC and others do, of emissivity is a fools errand.

What is the value, averaged arithmetically over time, of a parameter that varies sinusoidally around, say X? Why, it's X you science dimwit.

The changing dynamics of the earths atmosphere and angle of incidence can change the input from the sun by 200-400 w/m^2 from hitting the surface. When you start doing the complicated math the AGW models do not do, you find their errors are huge and in the same region of 200-400 w/m^2.

Models do as much math as the processor cycles available to them can accomplish. A model's not particularly valuable if it takes too long to run. As processor speeds and bit width have increased, the number of included factors has increased. And fast models get run in ensembles through Mointe Carlo trials increasing their value. No model is perfect, but they are infinitely better than anything possessed by those who reject AGW outright. No model has been able to hindcast the 20th century without including AGW. That's a fact repeated here many times and not once ever addressed by you and yours.

You act as if the angle of incidence and the sun's TSI were unknown and unknowable. That, of course, is complete nonsense.

Then we talk water vapor and its major role is disproving the CO2 monster.

Water vapor does not disprove CO2 warming. It's effects and behavior are well known and well considered in even the simplest of GC models.

When the earths atmosphere expands, at the equator and thins above the poles, under low solar influence, heat is rapidly lost in the polar regions as is happening today.

Both poles are heating up and have been for years.

The warmth above the equator increases pushing temps poleward.

Pushing temps? Heat has ALWAYS moved from the equator to the poles you fool.

This shift is noticeable today. Water vapor increases above the equator and diminishes above the poles.

I cannot believe the ignorance you bring to bear here. The poles have been deserts for millions of years. The equator has been a rainforest just as long.

If we look at the yearly water vapor numbers they are in direct relation to solar wind output and not necessarily in line with solar cycle intensity.

Why aren't you looking at global average temperatures wrt solar wind output? Got a correlation there? If so, let's see it.

This mess is not settled... Many attributions to magical CO2 can be shown patently false.

You have yet to falsify ONE with any of the ignorant bullshit you've tried to pass off here.

Why not begin by simply admitting that you do not have a degree in atmospheric physics. That would do a lot to clear the air around here. Folks might even start listening to you - particularly if you were to start posting things you could actually demonstrate were valid ideas vice things you wish were true or things that just popped up in your addled brain.

You are so deluded...

Tell me what happens when you spin a water balloon...

Moron..

 

[IanC]

Every one of those 'nuggets' can be shown empirically.

The choice not to go into great depth is the level of understanding of the audience. AGW oversimplifies the actions of our atmosphere in an effort to mislead and create fear.

The reason many of the luke-warmers don't want to try and understand is obvious, what is shown does not fall in line with your beliefs

None of your 'nuggets' count for anything because they are irretrievably mixed with bullshit.

Your first paragraph was-

One of the biggest glaring issues is the size of the atmosphere is directly related to solar wind and its pressure on the ionosphere. The mass of the atmosphere, as anyone who studies atmospheric physics knows, is relatively stable due to earths magnetic field. The position of that mass is determined by pressures applied externally and the rotation of the earth.

The only reasonable thing you said is that the height of the atmosphere is affected by the rotation of the Earth. Everything else is nonsense. I can't give you credit for one non-incorrect point when the idea presented in the paragraph is nonsensical.

On the other hand, when you steer clear of science, you sometimes say insightful things. eg-

The choice not to go into great depth is the level of understanding of the audience. AGW oversimplifies the actions of our atmosphere in an effort to mislead and create fear

I totally agree with the first sentence although the media deserves much of the blame. The second sentence is true but I dislike attributing motive because it can easily be mistaken. In this case I think you are certainly at least partially correct.

I consider myself a lukewarmer, and I assure you that I am trying to understand. My beliefs are malleable according to evidence and explanation. My position has changed considerably over the last decade, although more in the fine details rather than the overall picture.

 

[SSDD]

My beliefs are malleable according to evidence and explanation. My position has changed considerably over the last decade, although more in the fine details rather than the overall picture.

No they aren't...and your position has changed very little...if it doesn't support the magic of CO2, then you disregard it...there is sufficient observed, measured evidence out there to complete justify scrapping both the AGW hypothesis, and the Greenhouse hypothesis itself and yet, you continue to argue for both...

Tell me ian...once again..in real science, how many predictive failures does a hypothesis get before it is scrapped and work begins on a new, more workable hypothesis?

And no..the hot spot is not at ground level....the greenhouse hypothesis predicts that it will be at a certain altitude...it isn't there...the hypothesis fails...now tell me again why you claim your beliefs are malleable according to the evidence?

 

[IanC]

My beliefs are malleable according to evidence and explanation. My position has changed considerably over the last decade, although more in the fine details rather than the overall picture.

No they aren't...and your position has changed very little...if it doesn't support the magic of CO2, then you disregard it...there is sufficient observed, measured evidence out there to complete justify scrapping both the AGW hypothesis, and the Greenhouse hypothesis itself and yet, you continue to argue for both...

Tell me ian...once again..in real science, how many predictive failures does a hypothesis get before it is scrapped and work begins on a new, more workable hypothesis?

And no..the hot spot is not at ground level....the greenhouse hypothesis predicts that it will be at a certain altitude...it isn't there...the hypothesis fails...now tell me again why you claim your beliefs are malleable according to the evidence?

All you do is shout, "You're wrong" at people. No reasonable explanations, and typically the evidence you provide actually weakens your position.

As a lukewarmer I have shown the mechanism where the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere causes a warming influence. You now have two options. Prove my mechanism wrong. Or demonstrate a second mechanism that shows CO2 also causes a cooling influence that balances or overwhelms the warming influence. So far you have done neither.

Next, you misrepresent my position. I have been on the forefront in presenting criticisms for such AGW topics as the missing hotspot, catastrophic feedbacks, temperature measurements, climate sensitivities, cherrypicking of evidence, etc. Yet you call on me to defend the very things I have been attacking. Why?

Denying physics basics hurts the Skeptical Cause. If you lie about one obvious thing people assume you could be lying about everything.

You lie, or at least misrepresent, so many things it is hard to keep track of them all. For instance, your 'one true version' of the second law of thermodynamics dates back to a time when heat was considered a fluid, the caloric, and people still believed in the aether. You could update your understanding but choose not to.

You refuse to acknowledge that the S-B equations need to be solved for both input and output, leaving a net result. Even though the emissivities of the objects are typically different.

I could go on, but rebutting your obstinate ignorance is tiresome.

Get back to me if you ever want to take a reasoned position that you are willing to actually defend against legitimate criticism.

 

[Muhammed]

Really? Please explain that to the glaciers and ice caps.

Why are you true believers in Al Gore's CAGW doomsday cult prophecies so obsessed with glaciers?

What's up with that, Chicken Little?