Nye's Quadrant

[anotherlife]

Wow, 4 quadrants? I am surprised. Looks like some human resources officer has found yet another way of charting corporate efficiency planning. High usefulness and low usefulness? Some chart indeed.

 

[Old Rocks]

As for Curry -- she's in that top right quadrant. Always worked on the HARD stuff. The way the thermodynamics of the Earth REALLY works. Filling in those gaps of knowledge about time constants and delays and redistribution of heat.

She's STILL be doing that if she wasn't targeted and blackballed for not "singing the correct hymn" out of the GW hymnal..

Dumb ass, a real scientist with real evidence soldiers on, does not turn tail and try to make money off of their being ignored by the rest of the scientists. They continue to work, and present evidence, and, if they are right, they will win in the end. A prime example of that is J. Harlan Bretz. Curry is a quitter because her hypothesis, like those of Lindzen, did not stand the light of day.

Not if they are cut from grants, harassed by the Univ, and can't get papers published because they are blacklisted.

Damn, fellow, read about the hassles that J. Harlan Bretz put up with.

 

[flacaltenn]

As for Curry -- she's in that top right quadrant. Always worked on the HARD stuff. The way the thermodynamics of the Earth REALLY works. Filling in those gaps of knowledge about time constants and delays and redistribution of heat.

She's STILL be doing that if she wasn't targeted and blackballed for not "singing the correct hymn" out of the GW hymnal..

Dumb ass, a real scientist with real evidence soldiers on, does not turn tail and try to make money off of their being ignored by the rest of the scientists. They continue to work, and present evidence, and, if they are right, they will win in the end. A prime example of that is J. Harlan Bretz. Curry is a quitter because her hypothesis, like those of Lindzen, did not stand the light of day.

Not if they are cut from grants, harassed by the Univ, and can't get papers published because they are blacklisted.

Damn, fellow, read about the hassles that J. Harlan Bretz put up with.

I love that guy's fried chicken. LOL.. Want to go toe to toe on academic political blackballing? Didn't think so. My list would STILL be going up a month from now.. 90% are primadonnas who think they can intimidate and overwhelm opposition with political correctness and group think.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Same Shit, care to explain the temperature of the Earth? Why are we not at -18C?

Atmospheric thermal effect...it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...it is the basis for the international standard atmosphere which describes the temperature on planet earth without the first mention of a fictitious greenhouse effect...while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor.

The greenhouse effect is pseudoscience, nothing more..as evidenced by the fact that you can't even provide a single measurement of it...

Give us a short explanation of the atmospheric thermal effect. Then I will show you how GHGs affect the lapse rates, causing higher near surface temps and lower TOA temps.

The GHG lapse rate change will only be affected until thermal equilibrium is reached. On Earth CO2's effect will be a few weeks at most. The greater effect is water vapor. Basically you will be unable to discern it from noise in our climatic system.

 

[IanC]

Same Shit, care to explain the temperature of the Earth? Why are we not at -18C?

Atmospheric thermal effect...it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...it is the basis for the international standard atmosphere which describes the temperature on planet earth without the first mention of a fictitious greenhouse effect...while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor.

The greenhouse effect is pseudoscience, nothing more..as evidenced by the fact that you can't even provide a single measurement of it...

Give us a short explanation of the atmospheric thermal effect. Then I will show you how GHGs affect the lapse rates, causing higher near surface temps and lower TOA temps.

The GHG lapse rate change will only be affected until thermal equilibrium is reached. On Earth CO2's effect will be a few weeks at most. The greater effect is water vapor. Basically you will be unable to discern it from noise in our climatic system.

You want me to repeat it yet again?

Let's focus on the simple case of CO2. CO2 absorbs several bands of surface IR radiation. One, the 15 micron band, would simply fly away to space at the speed of light were it not for CO2. The energy is captured and spread to the rest of the atmosphere by molecular collision, warming the air.

Close to the top of the atmosphere CO2 is excited by molecular collisions and emits 15 micron IR which escapes because there is not enough density to recapture it with another CO2 molecule unless the direction is back into the bulk of the atmosphere. The air is cooled by this radiation leaving.

CO2 warms the near surface air and cools the high air. But it absorbs more lower down than it releases higher up. For a net gain of atmospheric temperature.

Lapse rate is the amount temperature change as you go from low to high. Warming the bottom and cooling the top by definition increases the lapse rate.

I hope this variation-on-a-theme explanation, which dovetails with all my other attempts, will help you to understand. But I doubt it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Same Shit, care to explain the temperature of the Earth? Why are we not at -18C?

Atmospheric thermal effect...it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...it is the basis for the international standard atmosphere which describes the temperature on planet earth without the first mention of a fictitious greenhouse effect...while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor.

The greenhouse effect is pseudoscience, nothing more..as evidenced by the fact that you can't even provide a single measurement of it...

Give us a short explanation of the atmospheric thermal effect. Then I will show you how GHGs affect the lapse rates, causing higher near surface temps and lower TOA temps.

The GHG lapse rate change will only be affected until thermal equilibrium is reached. On Earth CO2's effect will be a few weeks at most. The greater effect is water vapor. Basically you will be unable to discern it from noise in our climatic system.

You want me to repeat it yet again?

Let's focus on the simple case of CO2. CO2 absorbs several bands of surface IR radiation. One, the 15 micron band, would simply fly away to space at the speed of light were it not for CO2. The energy is captured and spread to the rest of the atmosphere by molecular collision, warming the air.

Close to the top of the atmosphere CO2 is excited by molecular collisions and emits 15 micron IR which escapes because there is not enough density to recapture it with another CO2 molecule unless the direction is back into the bulk of the atmosphere. The air is cooled by this radiation leaving.

CO2 warms the near surface air and cools the high air. But it absorbs more lower down than it releases higher up. For a net gain of atmospheric temperature.

Lapse rate is the amount temperature change as you go from low to high. Warming the bottom and cooling the top by definition increases the lapse rate.

I hope this variation-on-a-theme explanation, which dovetails with all my other attempts, will help you to understand. But I doubt it.

The time energy resides in our atmosphere is dependent on mass and inhibiting factors. Inhibiting factors, such as CO2, can only affect the lapse rate until equilibrium is met, at which time the in and out balance is neutral and can no longer affect it.

If I take CO2 and place it in a cylinder and compress it to 100% @ 3 atmospheres it will only warm until equilibrium is met and then it will begin to cool as all mass does.

 

[IanC]

Same Shit, care to explain the temperature of the Earth? Why are we not at -18C?

Atmospheric thermal effect...it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...it is the basis for the international standard atmosphere which describes the temperature on planet earth without the first mention of a fictitious greenhouse effect...while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor.

The greenhouse effect is pseudoscience, nothing more..as evidenced by the fact that you can't even provide a single measurement of it...

Give us a short explanation of the atmospheric thermal effect. Then I will show you how GHGs affect the lapse rates, causing higher near surface temps and lower TOA temps.

The GHG lapse rate change will only be affected until thermal equilibrium is reached. On Earth CO2's effect will be a few weeks at most. The greater effect is water vapor. Basically you will be unable to discern it from noise in our climatic system.

You want me to repeat it yet again?

Let's focus on the simple case of CO2. CO2 absorbs several bands of surface IR radiation. One, the 15 micron band, would simply fly away to space at the speed of light were it not for CO2. The energy is captured and spread to the rest of the atmosphere by molecular collision, warming the air.

Close to the top of the atmosphere CO2 is excited by molecular collisions and emits 15 micron IR which escapes because there is not enough density to recapture it with another CO2 molecule unless the direction is back into the bulk of the atmosphere. The air is cooled by this radiation leaving.

CO2 warms the near surface air and cools the high air. But it absorbs more lower down than it releases higher up. For a net gain of atmospheric temperature.

Lapse rate is the amount temperature change as you go from low to high. Warming the bottom and cooling the top by definition increases the lapse rate.

I hope this variation-on-a-theme explanation, which dovetails with all my other attempts, will help you to understand. But I doubt it.

The time energy resides in our atmosphere is dependent on mass and inhibiting factors. Inhibiting factors, such as CO2, can only affect the lapse rate until equilibrium is met, at which time the in and out balance is neutral and can no longer affect it.

If I take CO2 and place it in a cylinder and compress it to 100% @ 3 atmospheres it will only warm until equilibrium is met and then it will begin to cool as all mass does.

???? Non sequitur.

Release the gas and it will cool, a la a CO2 fire extinguisher. So what?

I said CO2's presence in the atmosphere increased the lapse rate. More CO2 will increase it more, less CO2 than now would drop it.

An atmosphere with no GHGs would have a low lapse rate. And a lot less stored energy. The much smaller temperature gradient from bottom to top would be a function of switching from mostly kinetic energy (temperature) near the surface, to mostly potential energy near the top.

 

[SSDD]

At least I make points, and explain the reasons and evidence that led me to that conclusion.

In most cases Ian...you have no "evidence"...you have unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical models.

On the other hand, you make declarative statements that are often absurd. And then refuse to provide the reasoning or evidence to back it up.

In this case it is atmospheric mass controlling surface temperature. You say it accurately predicts all the planets with atmospheres. Then you refuse to show the predictions, or even give the basic physics behind them.

I have shown you over and over and over...but like rocks, crick, and the hairball, you choose to either ignore that which questions your belief, or handily forget that you have ever seen it. Here, once again....and book mark it this time so that you can go back and look at it for yourself.


Venus (at the surface)

P = 92000(mb)
n= 65000 (g/m3)
R= 43.45( g/mole)
Temp = 737 K

92000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 65000 (g/ m3) / 43.45 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 92000/ (0.082 x 65000/43.45) = ~750 K


Earth (at the surface)

P= 1014 (mb)
n= 1217 (g/m3)
R= 28.97 (g/mole)
Temp = 288 K

1014 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 1217 (g/ m3) / 28.97 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1014/ (0.082 x 1217/28.97) = ~294 K


Jupiter (at 1 bar)

P= 1000
n= 160 (g/m3)
R=2.22 (g/mole)
Temp = 165 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 160 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 160/2.22) = ~169 K


Saturn (at 1 bar)

P= 1000(mb)
n=160 (g/m3)
R=2.22(g/mole)
Temp = 134 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 190 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 190/2.07) = ~133 K


Uranus (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=420 (g/m3)
R=2.64 (g/mole)
Temp = 76 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 420 (g/ m3) / 2.64 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 420/2.64) = ~77 K

Neptune (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=450(g/m3)
R=2.69 (g/mole)
Temp = 72 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 450 (g/ m3) / 2.69 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 450/2.69) = ~73 K

You say greenhouse theory doesn't predict Earth temps without a fudge factor. You don't identify the fudge factor.

The fact that you don't know what the fudge factor is is pretty convincing evidence that you are no sort of skeptic at all.. you are simply a believer who doesn't believe the magic is quite as strong as the real wackos believe it to be...The fudge factor isn't for calculating AGW...it is for calculating the greenhouse effect itself..which is why I hold the position that there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

The fudge factor goes something like this.....the amount of heat that gets added to the atmosphere (in w/m2)is 5.35 times the natural log of the amount of atmospheric CO2 after an increase in atmospheric CO2 divided by the previous amount of atmospheric CO2. The w/m2 are then converted to a temperature increase by applying the SB equations.

The fudge factor is without the first inkling of scientific merit. It removes saturation...and nothing can remove saturation...and there isn't even an attempt at explaining why saturation was removed...and in fact, it appears that the fudge factor was derived explicitly to remove saturation for no scientifically valid reason.

There are volumes on the topic available...warmers aren't interested however, because they have their models and the models represent reality to them. You are a warmer no matter what you call yourself...the only thing you are skeptical of is the strength of the magic.

 

[SSDD]

Same Shit, care to explain the temperature of the Earth? Why are we not at -18C?

Atmospheric thermal effect...it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...it is the basis for the international standard atmosphere which describes the temperature on planet earth without the first mention of a fictitious greenhouse effect...while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor.

The greenhouse effect is pseudoscience, nothing more..as evidenced by the fact that you can't even provide a single measurement of it...

Give us a short explanation of the atmospheric thermal effect. Then I will show you how GHGs affect the lapse rates, causing higher near surface temps and lower TOA temps.

The GHG lapse rate change will only be affected until thermal equilibrium is reached. On Earth CO2's effect will be a few weeks at most. The greater effect is water vapor. Basically you will be unable to discern it from noise in our climatic system.

You want me to repeat it yet again?

Let's focus on the simple case of CO2. CO2 absorbs several bands of surface IR radiation. One, the 15 micron band, would simply fly away to space at the speed of light were it not for CO2. The energy is captured and spread to the rest of the atmosphere by molecular collision, warming the air.

Close to the top of the atmosphere CO2 is excited by molecular collisions and emits 15 micron IR which escapes because there is not enough density to recapture it with another CO2 molecule unless the direction is back into the bulk of the atmosphere. The air is cooled by this radiation leaving.

CO2 warms the near surface air and cools the high air. But it absorbs more lower down than it releases higher up. For a net gain of atmospheric temperature.

Lapse rate is the amount temperature change as you go from low to high. Warming the bottom and cooling the top by definition increases the lapse rate.

I hope this variation-on-a-theme explanation, which dovetails with all my other attempts, will help you to understand. But I doubt it.

The effect of CO2 on the climate is zero or less. You are theorizing on the properties and effect of magic.

 

[IanC]

At least I make points, and explain the reasons and evidence that led me to that conclusion.

In most cases Ian...you have no "evidence"...you have unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical models.

On the other hand, you make declarative statements that are often absurd. And then refuse to provide the reasoning or evidence to back it up.

In this case it is atmospheric mass controlling surface temperature. You say it accurately predicts all the planets with atmospheres. Then you refuse to show the predictions, or even give the basic physics behind them.

I have shown you over and over and over...but like rocks, crick, and the hairball, you choose to either ignore that which questions your belief, or handily forget that you have ever seen it. Here, once again....and book mark it this time so that you can go back and look at it for yourself.


Venus (at the surface)

P = 92000(mb)
n= 65000 (g/m3)
R= 43.45( g/mole)
Temp = 737 K

92000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 65000 (g/ m3) / 43.45 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 92000/ (0.082 x 65000/43.45) = ~750 K


Earth (at the surface)

P= 1014 (mb)
n= 1217 (g/m3)
R= 28.97 (g/mole)
Temp = 288 K

1014 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 1217 (g/ m3) / 28.97 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1014/ (0.082 x 1217/28.97) = ~294 K


Jupiter (at 1 bar)

P= 1000
n= 160 (g/m3)
R=2.22 (g/mole)
Temp = 165 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 160 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 160/2.22) = ~169 K


Saturn (at 1 bar)

P= 1000(mb)
n=160 (g/m3)
R=2.22(g/mole)
Temp = 134 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 190 (g/ m3) / 2.22 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 190/2.07) = ~133 K


Uranus (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=420 (g/m3)
R=2.64 (g/mole)
Temp = 76 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 420 (g/ m3) / 2.64 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 420/2.64) = ~77 K

Neptune (at 1 bar)

P=1000
n=450(g/m3)
R=2.69 (g/mole)
Temp = 72 K

PV = nRT

1000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 450 (g/ m3) / 2.69 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 1000/ (0.082 x 450/2.69) = ~73 K

You say greenhouse theory doesn't predict Earth temps without a fudge factor. You don't identify the fudge factor.

The fact that you don't know what the fudge factor is is pretty convincing evidence that you are no sort of skeptic at all.. you are simply a believer who doesn't believe the magic is quite as strong as the real wackos believe it to be...The fudge factor isn't for calculating AGW...it is for calculating the greenhouse effect itself..which is why I hold the position that there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science.

The fudge factor goes something like this.....the amount of heat that gets added to the atmosphere (in w/m2)is 5.35 times the natural log of the amount of atmospheric CO2 after an increase in atmospheric CO2 divided by the previous amount of atmospheric CO2. The w/m2 are then converted to a temperature increase by applying the SB equations.

The fudge factor is without the first inkling of scientific merit. It removes saturation...and nothing can remove saturation...and there isn't even an attempt at explaining why saturation was removed...and in fact, it appears that the fudge factor was derived explicitly to remove saturation for no scientifically valid reason.

There are volumes on the topic available...warmers aren't interested however, because they have their models and the models represent reality to them. You are a warmer no matter what you call yourself...the only thing you are skeptical of is the strength of the magic.

So you admit the estimates for Earth and Venus are wrong, and Mars is missing.

Your position is an exercise in circular thinking. Of course the Ideal Gas Law will give a reasonable estimate, it is based on real observations. If you raise or lower the solar input, you also lower or raise the density, giving you the same general estimate.

I have always agreed with you that the simple fact that an atmosphere, just by existing, will provide a lot of information about possible temperature ranges and the energy inputs needed to hold it in place.

Your explanation has one serious drawback. It uses a local property (one bar of pressure) instead of the general property of density.

The changes that GHGs make in the temperature profile of the atmosphere are not captured by a single point measurement. Gross general estimates do not permit the fine grain detail to be examined. A general range does not explain the changes that we are looking for, which are an order of magnitude smaller.

 

[anotherlife]

Same Shit, care to explain the temperature of the Earth? Why are we not at -18C?

Atmospheric thermal effect...it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...it is the basis for the international standard atmosphere which describes the temperature on planet earth without the first mention of a fictitious greenhouse effect...while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature here without an ad hoc fudge factor.

The greenhouse effect is pseudoscience, nothing more..as evidenced by the fact that you can't even provide a single measurement of it...

Give us a short explanation of the atmospheric thermal effect. Then I will show you how GHGs affect the lapse rates, causing higher near surface temps and lower TOA temps.

The GHG lapse rate change will only be affected until thermal equilibrium is reached. On Earth CO2's effect will be a few weeks at most. The greater effect is water vapor. Basically you will be unable to discern it from noise in our climatic system.

You want me to repeat it yet again?

Let's focus on the simple case of CO2. CO2 absorbs several bands of surface IR radiation. One, the 15 micron band, would simply fly away to space at the speed of light were it not for CO2. The energy is captured and spread to the rest of the atmosphere by molecular collision, warming the air.

Close to the top of the atmosphere CO2 is excited by molecular collisions and emits 15 micron IR which escapes because there is not enough density to recapture it with another CO2 molecule unless the direction is back into the bulk of the atmosphere. The air is cooled by this radiation leaving.

CO2 warms the near surface air and cools the high air. But it absorbs more lower down than it releases higher up. For a net gain of atmospheric temperature.

Lapse rate is the amount temperature change as you go from low to high. Warming the bottom and cooling the top by definition increases the lapse rate.

I hope this variation-on-a-theme explanation, which dovetails with all my other attempts, will help you to understand. But I doubt it.

The effect of CO2 on the climate is zero or less. You are theorizing on the properties and effect of magic.

No magic. Very simple. No more global warming now, as no more CO2 emissions any more now, Auschwitz shut down all furnaces. Problem solved.

 

[SSDD]

So you admit the estimates for Earth and Venus are wrong, and Mars is missing.

Geez Ian...corrections for incoming solar radiation must be made..the above is using nothing more than the ideal gas laws...for a guy who fancies himself as smart, you miss a great deal...and seem incapable of figuring out much. Since you clearly can't manage mars by yourself, here.....

Mars atmosphere is very thin so minimum and maximum calculations are used as measured at the Viking Lander site....

6.9 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 20 (g/ m3) / 43.34 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 6.9/ (0.082 x 20/43.34) = ~182 K; or,

T = 9/ (0.082 x 20/43.34) = ~238 K

Your position is an exercise in circular thinking. Of course the Ideal Gas Law will give a reasonable estimate, it is based on real observations. If you raise or lower the solar input, you also lower or raise the density, giving you the same general estimate.

Your position is an exercise in magical thinking...try applying the greenhouse hypothesis to the rest of the planets and see how far off you are.

Your explanation has one serious drawback. It uses a local property (one bar of pressure) instead of the general property of density.

The pressure of 1 bar is convenience...the ideal gas calculations provide an accurate prediction of temperature regardless of the pressure...

The changes that GHGs make in the temperature profile of the atmosphere are not captured by a single point measurement.

There are no changes that GHG's make beyond their contribution to the mass of the atmosphere.

Gross general estimates do not permit the fine grain detail to be examined.

Neither do the calculations associated with the greenhouse hypothesis..in fact, they don't even come close to the accuracy achieved by the ideal gas laws...

A general range does not explain the changes that we are looking for, which are an order of magnitude smaller.

You are looking for unicorns...and you will have better luck finding unicorns than you will have trying to find a human fingerprint in the climate due to so called greenhouse gasses.

 

[SSDD]

Your position is an exercise in circular thinking. Of course the Ideal Gas Law will give a reasonable estimate, it is based on real observations..

And save us all from science that is based on real observations....right? It seems that in your mind, science is only valid if it is based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

 

[IanC]

The pressure of 1 bar is convenience...the ideal gas calculations provide an accurate prediction of temperature regardless of the pressure...

The ideal gas laws give reasonable estimates only under ideal conditions. The most important one is density, the volume of the molecules must be negligible compared to the volume of space being examined. Gravity is also assumed to be constant, as is the temperature gradient.

This works fine for a small volume of low density. Not so good for large volumes, especially when they have Temperature and gravity gradients, or high densities such as the surface of Venus.

Without CO2 intercepting its fraction of surface radiation energy the total energy of the atmosphere would be lower. Therefore the height of the atmosphere would be lower, therefore the density would be higher. Plugging a higher density into the gas equation spits out a lower temperature. Same mass, different temperature. Like I said, circular reasoning. The ideal gas laws will always give you a reasonable estimate of temperature but it is the density that gives the information on how much energy is stored in the atmosphere, and the range of input needed to hold it aloft in the gravity field.

 

[SSDD]

The ideal gas laws give reasonable estimates only under ideal conditions. .

Demonstrably wrong as evidenced by the calculations above...all estimates are damned close to the actual temperatures less some small adjustment for incoming solar radiation.

This works fine for a small volume of low density. Not so good for large volumes, especially when they have Temperature and gravity gradients, or high densities such as the surface of Venus.

Venus (at the surface)

P = 92000(mb)
n= 65000 (g/m3)
R= 43.45( g/mole)
Temp = 737 K

92000 (mb) x 1000 (litre/ m3) = 65000 (g/ m3) / 43.45 (g/mole) x 0.082 x T

T = 92000/ (0.082 x 65000/43.45) = ~750 K

Without CO2 intercepting its fraction of surface radiation energy the total energy of the atmosphere would be lower.

CO2 doesn't intercept anything...it absorbs and emits and the energy moves on to cooler pastures.

 

[SSDD]

Without CO2 intercepting its fraction of surface radiation energy the total energy of the atmosphere would be lower. Therefore the height of the atmosphere would be lower, therefore the density would be higher. Plugging a higher density into the gas equation spits out a lower temperature. Same mass, different temperature. Like I said, circular reasoning. The ideal gas laws will always give you a reasonable estimate of temperature but it is the density that gives the information on how much energy is stored in the atmosphere, and the range of input needed to hold it aloft in the gravity field.

Just ran across a paper that discusses the ideas of so called skeptics...very interesting although I am sure that your faith will not allow you to put any real thought into what is stated...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Here....examination of your particular hypothesis on greenhouse mechanics...

Definition 3
A regular description of the ‘greenhouse gas’ heating mechanism is that referred to as ‘back radiation’. Atmospheric gases such as CO2, having a dipole moment, absorb some incoming solar radiation and some of the IR radiation the Earth’s surface radiates toward free space. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, ‘re-radiated energy in the IR portion of the spectrum is trapped within the atmosphere keeping the surface temperature warm’. This ‘trapping’ is assumed to occur as the surface radiates to the atmosphere and the atmosphere radiates back to the surface.

The Critique
The radiation emitted from the warmer surface absorbed by the colder atmosphere is readily detected by orbiting satellites. However, back radiation from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface heating the surface further violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

There are two problems with that amount of down-welling radiation: the atmosphere is not a blackbody with unit emissivity and equally, is not radiating toward a receptive absorber. Yet it is depicted as radiating heat downwards to the warmer Earth’s surface in direct violation of the Second Law.

The flow of heat is always from the hotter surface to the colder surface as required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Nowhere in the radiation field between the two surfaces is the flux of radiant energy equal to that which either surface would emit if they were facing a complete void. Thus, the simple use of the Stefan-Boltzmann term, δT4 to characterize the emission from a source of radiation in the manner that depends only on the temperature of the source without considering the temperature of the surroundings receiving the radiation, is a misapplication of the equation and the notion that a colder source can transfer radiant energy to a warmer object is a misapplication of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

It would therefore be clear that the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann term to simply characterize radiant energy being transferred from an object to its surroundings without reference to the conditions of the surroundings in radiative contact with that object is a misapplication of the equation.

It would be incorrect to talk in terms of radiation exchanging, since transfer occurs only from warmer to cooler matter, from higher energy level to lower energy level.



Definition 4
A proposed new definition of the greenhouse theory to overcome the objections raised against warming by back radiation argues that IR absorbing ‘greenhouse gases’ hinder radiative transport from the Earth’s surface upwards and aid to keep the surface warm and warmer than it would otherwise be in the absence of those gases.

The Critique
The definition ignores the fact that those gases themselves emit radiation to free space adding to radiation loss from the system. Radiation loss to free space from the earth’s surface and its atmosphere is essentially the same with or without presence of absorbing gases for the following reasons: the cooling by radiation to free space is a one-step process; in the presence of an atmosphere, it is a two-step process with the same loss, with or without, the absorbing and emitting gaseous atmosphere. When talking about radiation, it is absorbed radiation or emitted radiation that is being considered.


Conclusion
The various stated definitions of the greenhouse effect have been subjected to the rigorous scrutiny and application of the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics. They were found to be unreal, and unless some new definition can be put forward that satisfies and complies with those laws, it can only be concluded that the concept of a ‘greenhouse gas’ or a ‘greenhouse effect’ has not been demonstrated and is thus without merit.


Like it or not ian, your position is based on belief..and that belief is rooted strongly in terribly misunderstood, misused, and mutliated laws of physics...the laws of physics as you "understand" them are incarnated in the GCM models...if they were correct, then the output of the models would mirror reality...we all know that they don't..and why?...because the physics they are based upon is fiction...

 

[jc456]

Nye is not retarded (and you're a complete dick for using the term as an insult), he has a masters degree in Mechanical Engineering - so vastly more educated than are you. And he doesn't lie about his education as do you, so you calling him a liar just doesn't work. What Nye says about the climate and global warming is all backed up by the thousands of published research papers that form the foundation of the consensus opinion: the world is getting warmer and human GHG emissions are primarily to blame.

Again, let me repeat: YOU are the liar and until you are willing to speak honestly about yourself, your opinion re the honesty of others is absolutely worthless.

I agree, why insult the handicapped and disabled by including nye in that group.

 

[SSDD]

Don't know where you ran off to Ian but I just saw that N&Z have published a full blown alternative theory to the failed greenhouse hypothesis...but unlike the greenhouse hypothesis, their theory is based on fully vetted spanning a vast range of physical environments...and it accurately predicts the temperature across the board...

The paper was published in Environment, Pollution, and Climate Change...here is a link to the full paper..

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

Actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence...with all the methodology provided...reproduceable by anyone who cares to take the time...not hidden behind a paywall.....very unlike the methodology of the cult of the climate faithful...both the full blown wackos and those who still believe the magic but just don't think it is all that strong.

 

[mamooth]

What a stupid paper. It starts out claiming the greenhouse effect is 90K. Why? Because they claimed it in another paper (under the names "Volokin and ReLlez", just their own names reversed).

It's not tough to calculate the greenhouse effect. We know what the black body temperature of an earth without an atmosphere should be. We know what the average temperature is. The difference is around 33K. That's the greenhouse effect.

So, they started out with a botched assumption. From there, they go into a curve fitting frenzy. Unfortunately, curve fitting isn't science, it's mathturbation. Twiddle the parameters and add fudge factors, and curves can be fit to anything. And that's what they did. For example, the actual data for Mars didn't fit their theory, so they simply made up some new data for Mars.

SSDD, why don't you summarize for us how the greenhouse effect is really 90K? After all, you endorsed that claim. If you know what you're talking about, it should be easy. And good luck with your perpetual motion machine science, as that's what all "static pressure creates heat" claims are. Even Spencer says it's nonsense.

Why Atmospheric Pressure Cannot Explain the Elevated Surface Temperature of the Earth « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[SSDD]

What a stupid paper. It starts out claiming the greenhouse effect is 90K. Why? Because they claimed it in another paper (under the names "Volokin and ReLlez", just their own names reversed).

Sorry hairball..but that paper actually supports the claims made within it with observed, measured, quantified data...unlike the quaint 19th century greenhouse effect model.

It's not tough to calculate the greenhouse effect. .

Sure...it is easy to calculate anything if you do it with ad hoc fudge factors...now making it work on other planets is a whole different thing and N&Z's theory works on any rocky planet no matter what the atmospheric composition while the greenhouse hypothesis only works here and then only with a completely made up fudge factor that has no scientific merit.

So, they started out with a botched assumption. From there, they go into a curve fitting frenzy. Unfortunately, curve fitting isn't science, it's mathturbation. Twiddle the parameters and add fudge factors, and curves can be fit to anything. And that's what they did. For example, the actual data for Mars didn't fit their theory, so they simply made up some new data for Mars.

Sorry hairball..but you couldn't be more wrong...but than that is how you roll...right?

SSDD, why don't you summarize for us how the greenhouse effect is really 90K? After all, you endorsed that claim. If you know what you're talking about, it should be easy. And good luck with your perpetual motion machine science, as that's what all "static pressure creates heat" claims are. Even Spencer says it's nonsense.

here...read the paper for yourself.

https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/planetary_temperature_model_volokin_rellez_2015.pdf