Roy Spencer's blog for Aug 16

[jc456]

You guys are idiots. The recycling of radiation is bounded by the infinite series 1+1/2+1/4...=2. And that is for a system with no losses to alternate pathways. Then there is fact that the energy needed to increase temperature goes up relative to T^4. And then there is the fact that CO2 only reacts to about 8% of the surface radiation emitted, less if you are only counting CO2 specific radiation in the 15 micron band.

There is no runaway effect possible.

Prove it! Why can't you?

I made three declarative statements, and then synthesized a logical conclusion from them that rebutted your opinion that energy returning to the surface from the atmosphere would necessarily cause out of control warming.

Which link(s) in my chain of logic do you dispute, and why? Please be specific.

Dude, if radiation would be returned, and reabsorb as you believe, it would repeat endlessly, that is the fallacy that is gw we don't have out of control heat.

Not exactly specific.

So you are arguing that the infinite series 1+1/2+1/4+1/8...=2 is incorrect?

I think you should buff up your math.

Xeno's Paradox may help you grasp the situation. Hahahaha but I doubt it. You have neither the curiosity, or the intelligence to grasp much of anything.

I'm saying, for probably the umpteenth time, you have no evidence of your equation.

 

[IanC]

I would probably have more success trying to teach calculus to someone with Down's Syndrome if they were eager to learn. You revel in ignorance.

 

[jc456]

I would probably have more success trying to teach calculus to someone with Down's Syndrome if they were eager to learn. You revel in ignorance.

Well go for it! You think I care? Nadda stupid, nadda from you. BTW, you're so confused you don't even know what you believe. Me , I'm good. I have science on my side.

 

[IanC]

I would probably have more success trying to teach calculus to someone with Down's Syndrome if they were eager to learn. You revel in ignorance.

Well go for it! You think I care? Nadda stupid, nadda from you. BTW, you're so confused you don't even know what you believe. Me , I'm good. I have science on my side.

Show me your science that says SLR isn't rising.

 

[jc456]

I would probably have more success trying to teach calculus to someone with Down's Syndrome if they were eager to learn. You revel in ignorance.

Well go for it! You think I care? Nadda stupid, nadda from you. BTW, you're so confused you don't even know what you believe. Me , I'm good. I have science on my side.

Show me your science that says SLR isn't rising.

Why? Why don't you provide yours first. Afraid to?

 

[Billy_Bob]

You guys are idiots. The recycling of radiation is bounded by the infinite series 1+1/2+1/4...=2. And that is for a system with no losses to alternate pathways. Then there is fact that the energy needed to increase temperature goes up relative to T^4. And then there is the fact that CO2 only reacts to about 8% of the surface radiation emitted, less if you are only counting CO2 specific radiation in the 15 micron band.

There is no runaway effect possible.

"CO2 only reacts to 8% of surface radiation emitted"

This assumption is about 2-3 times to high. The shear mass of the atmosphere makes the probability about 1.75%. When we look at this in spectral specific terms it goes even lower. This is another issue with current modeling. They make assumptions from reworking models, to make them fit current observations, and do not fully understand how that change will affect the other variables which are interdependent on it. By the time you have made all the adjustments it bears no resemblance to reality. Each time they rework the 'energy in/energy out' balance and how it is affect by things such as clouds or dust the models cant predict squat.

Its those other areas/avenues of energy release and how they interact which make a runaway climate impossible.

 

[Crick]

The problem is, were not re-injecting heat were slowing its release. This requires work and work requires the expenditure of energy

Really?

How much energy does your blanket expend keeping you warm at night?

 

[SSDD]

I would probably have more success trying to teach calculus to someone with Down's Syndrome if they were eager to learn. You revel in ignorance.

Rather than strut around trying to show everyone how smart you are...which you clearly aren't because you are still a believer in the magic despite what you can observe with your own eyes...why not address the specific issue I brought up re: roy's logic..that being the input of heat from the sun is described as the difference in flux between the solar input and the surface output { FSun – FSurf(i) } why then would not heat input from the atmosphere be described as the difference between the atmospheric flux and the surface flux { FAtmo(i) – FSurf(i) } rather than being added straight in without regard to the temperature of the surface as his equation { TSurf(i+1) = TSurf(i) + (FSun – FSurf(i) + FAtmo(i))*dT/Cp } states?

Well, I can tell you why he doesn't do it...it is because the resulting calculated temperature will be around -47C.... Aside from that, lets hear your defense for his injecting the heat from the atmosphere into the equation in an entirely different manner than he injects the input from the sun...why is it correct to input heat from the sun as the difference in flux between the solar input and the surface output...but it is not correct to input heat from the atmosphere the same way?...If he is right...then you should have a good explanation...if he isn't..then explain why, if he is correct, the surface temperature isn't around -47C...and since the temperature obviously isn't around 47C...why do you still believe in this voodoo math?

 

[IanC]

I would probably have more success trying to teach calculus to someone with Down's Syndrome if they were eager to learn. You revel in ignorance.

Rather than strut around trying to show everyone how smart you are...which you clearly aren't because you are still a believer in the magic despite what you can observe with your own eyes...why not address the specific issue I brought up re: roy's logic..that being the input of heat from the sun is described as the difference in flux between the solar input and the surface output { FSun – FSurf(i) } why then would not heat input from the atmosphere be described as the difference between the atmospheric flux and the surface flux { FAtmo(i) – FSurf(i) } rather than being added straight in without regard to the temperature of the surface as his equation { TSurf(i+1) = TSurf(i) + (FSun – FSurf(i) + FAtmo(i))*dT/Cp } states?

Well, I can tell you why he doesn't do it...it is because the resulting calculated temperature will be around -47C.... Aside from that, lets hear your defense for his injecting the heat from the atmosphere into the equation in an entirely different manner than he injects the input from the sun...why is it correct to input heat from the sun as the difference in flux between the solar input and the surface output...but it is not correct to input heat from the atmosphere the same way?...If he is right...then you should have a good explanation...if he isn't..then explain why, if he is correct, the surface temperature isn't around -47C...and since the temperature obviously isn't around 47C...why do you still believe in this voodoo math?

Okay, I'll bite.

Link me up to the criticism of Spencer's math and I'll read when I have the time and inclination.

 

[flacaltenn]

You guys are idiots. The recycling of radiation is bounded by the infinite series 1+1/2+1/4...=2. And that is for a system with no losses to alternate pathways. Then there is fact that the energy needed to increase temperature goes up relative to T^4. And then there is the fact that CO2 only reacts to about 8% of the surface radiation emitted, less if you are only counting CO2 specific radiation in the 15 micron band.

There is no runaway effect possible.

Prove it! Why can't you?

I made three declarative statements, and then synthesized a logical conclusion from them that rebutted your opinion that energy returning to the surface from the atmosphere would necessarily cause out of control warming.

Which link(s) in my chain of logic do you dispute, and why? Please be specific.

Dude, if radiation would be returned, and reabsorb as you believe, it would repeat endlessly, that is the fallacy that is gw we don't have out of control heat.

Edit: BTW, I've stated that already!

For every Watt of IR energy that goes back to the ground from greenhouse gases --- there's is simultaneously MORE than a Watt of IR energy going skywards. That's why it gets cold at night genius... And if the Sun didn't rise in the morning, wouldn't be long for you to turn into a popsicle --- EVEN WITH increased GHGases.

Returning SOME energy from the atmos to the ground does NOT BUILD "out of control heat". It just LOWERS the amount that escapes back to "space" at any given moment of time.

 

[flacaltenn]

Doc Roy's experiment depends on the "lukewarm" piece not being IR reflective. Because you only want to see the "blackbody" radiation FROM IT influencing the temperature of the heated plate. I'll take his word for measuring that.

there is no net energy transfer...and roy's experiment depended on fluctuations in the output of the bulb...

HaHaHaHaHa ---- yeah right. He only measured TEMPERATURES. Temperatures in this case were primarily due to "heat flow". And the experiment controlled for conduction convection and the "flow" was almost all radiative transfer of IR..

The Bulb didn't react to the extra "insulation" did it? Or you think cardboard is that smart?

Where did the energy come from?

Since he excluded sources of convection and conduction -- the difference comes largely from the exchange of IR radiation.

So the temperature responds to the difference between between receiving little in IR from the ice chest -- but getting a larger exchange when the room temperature blocking material is inserted in the optical path. That's how heating from light energy works in any exchange. Net flow STILL warms the Ice chest or the cardboard shield. But the RATE of the exchange is SLOWER depending on literally "what is LOOKING at" the hot plate.

Hot plate shows a blip in temp because it's "heatsinking" ability is reduced for radiative energy.

 

[IanC]

You guys are idiots. The recycling of radiation is bounded by the infinite series 1+1/2+1/4...=2. And that is for a system with no losses to alternate pathways. Then there is fact that the energy needed to increase temperature goes up relative to T^4. And then there is the fact that CO2 only reacts to about 8% of the surface radiation emitted, less if you are only counting CO2 specific radiation in the 15 micron band.

There is no runaway effect possible.

Prove it! Why can't you?

I made three declarative statements, and then synthesized a logical conclusion from them that rebutted your opinion that energy returning to the surface from the atmosphere would necessarily cause out of control warming.

Which link(s) in my chain of logic do you dispute, and why? Please be specific.

Dude, if radiation would be returned, and reabsorb as you believe, it would repeat endlessly, that is the fallacy that is gw we don't have out of control heat.

Edit: BTW, I've stated that already!

For every Watt of IR energy that goes back to the ground from greenhouse gases --- there's is simultaneously MORE than a Watt of IR energy going skywards. That's why it gets cold at night genius... And if the Sun didn't rise in the morning, wouldn't be long for you to turn into a popsicle --- EVEN WITH increased GHGases.

Returning SOME energy from the atmos to the ground does NOT BUILD "out of control heat". It just LOWERS the amount that escapes back to "space" at any given moment of time.

I agree with your basic sentiment but it is awkwardly phrased and could use some editing.

 

[IanC]

Doc Roy's experiment depends on the "lukewarm" piece not being IR reflective. Because you only want to see the "blackbody" radiation FROM IT influencing the temperature of the heated plate. I'll take his word for measuring that.

there is no net energy transfer...and roy's experiment depended on fluctuations in the output of the bulb...

HaHaHaHaHa ---- yeah right. He only measured TEMPERATURES. Temperatures in this case were primarily due to "heat flow". And the experiment controlled for conduction convection and the "flow" was almost all radiative transfer of IR..

The Bulb didn't react to the extra "insulation" did it? Or you think cardboard is that smart?

Where did the energy come from?

Since he excluded sources of convection and conduction -- the difference comes largely from the exchange of IR radiation.

So the temperature responds to the difference between between receiving little in IR from the ice chest -- but getting a larger exchange when the room temperature blocking material is inserted in the optical path. That's how heating from light energy works in any exchange. Net flow STILL warms the Ice chest or the cardboard shield. But the RATE of the exchange is SLOWER depending on literally "what is LOOKING at" the hot plate.

Hot plate shows a blip in temp because it's "heatsinking" ability is reduced for radiative energy.

I think SSDD is referring to Spencer's simple 1D model of solar input and surface temps with and without GHGs. I haven't looked into it but I suspect he is trying to double count one of the flux differentials.

 

[jc456]

You guys are idiots. The recycling of radiation is bounded by the infinite series 1+1/2+1/4...=2. And that is for a system with no losses to alternate pathways. Then there is fact that the energy needed to increase temperature goes up relative to T^4. And then there is the fact that CO2 only reacts to about 8% of the surface radiation emitted, less if you are only counting CO2 specific radiation in the 15 micron band.

There is no runaway effect possible.

Prove it! Why can't you?

I made three declarative statements, and then synthesized a logical conclusion from them that rebutted your opinion that energy returning to the surface from the atmosphere would necessarily cause out of control warming.

Which link(s) in my chain of logic do you dispute, and why? Please be specific.

Dude, if radiation would be returned, and reabsorb as you believe, it would repeat endlessly, that is the fallacy that is gw we don't have out of control heat.

Edit: BTW, I've stated that already!

For every Watt of IR energy that goes back to the ground from greenhouse gases --- there's is simultaneously MORE than a Watt of IR energy going skywards. That's why it gets cold at night genius... And if the Sun didn't rise in the morning, wouldn't be long for you to turn into a popsicle --- EVEN WITH increased GHGases.

Returning SOME energy from the atmos to the ground does NOT BUILD "out of control heat". It just LOWERS the amount that escapes back to "space" at any given moment of time.

one watt in one watt out, is zero, so the surface didn't cool off and it needs to. Cause now there's the next sun day adding more IR to the surface and more IR with more GHGs you start building IR. It seems you miss that aspect of the next sun day. your sending back the day before's energy. Add more CO2 and you get more. Sorry, I don't see it, the earth would have gotten warmer by now by adding 120 PPM of CO2. It didn't. so, hence why I don't believe it. It's all your magic and it doesn't track.

 

[flacaltenn]

You guys are idiots. The recycling of radiation is bounded by the infinite series 1+1/2+1/4...=2. And that is for a system with no losses to alternate pathways. Then there is fact that the energy needed to increase temperature goes up relative to T^4. And then there is the fact that CO2 only reacts to about 8% of the surface radiation emitted, less if you are only counting CO2 specific radiation in the 15 micron band.

There is no runaway effect possible.

Prove it! Why can't you?

I made three declarative statements, and then synthesized a logical conclusion from them that rebutted your opinion that energy returning to the surface from the atmosphere would necessarily cause out of control warming.

Which link(s) in my chain of logic do you dispute, and why? Please be specific.

Dude, if radiation would be returned, and reabsorb as you believe, it would repeat endlessly, that is the fallacy that is gw we don't have out of control heat.

Edit: BTW, I've stated that already!

For every Watt of IR energy that goes back to the ground from greenhouse gases --- there's is simultaneously MORE than a Watt of IR energy going skywards. That's why it gets cold at night genius... And if the Sun didn't rise in the morning, wouldn't be long for you to turn into a popsicle --- EVEN WITH increased GHGases.

Returning SOME energy from the atmos to the ground does NOT BUILD "out of control heat". It just LOWERS the amount that escapes back to "space" at any given moment of time.

one watt in one watt out, is zero, so the surface didn't cool off and it needs to. Cause now there's the next sun day adding more IR to the surface and more IR with more GHGs you start building IR. It seems you miss that aspect of the next sun day. your sending back the day before's energy. Add more CO2 and you get more. Sorry, I don't see it, the earth would have gotten warmer by now by adding 120 PPM of CO2. It didn't. so, hence why I don't believe it. It's all your magic and it doesn't track.

So there's been no warming at all? Is it just convenient to deny everything? Or don't you see that if you add a watt-hr of energy from the sun (at the surface) is exactly the same as adding a watt-hr from reducing the net flow into space?

 

[flacaltenn]

You guys are idiots. The recycling of radiation is bounded by the infinite series 1+1/2+1/4...=2. And that is for a system with no losses to alternate pathways. Then there is fact that the energy needed to increase temperature goes up relative to T^4. And then there is the fact that CO2 only reacts to about 8% of the surface radiation emitted, less if you are only counting CO2 specific radiation in the 15 micron band.

There is no runaway effect possible.

Prove it! Why can't you?

I made three declarative statements, and then synthesized a logical conclusion from them that rebutted your opinion that energy returning to the surface from the atmosphere would necessarily cause out of control warming.

Which link(s) in my chain of logic do you dispute, and why? Please be specific.

Dude, if radiation would be returned, and reabsorb as you believe, it would repeat endlessly, that is the fallacy that is gw we don't have out of control heat.

Edit: BTW, I've stated that already!

For every Watt of IR energy that goes back to the ground from greenhouse gases --- there's is simultaneously MORE than a Watt of IR energy going skywards. That's why it gets cold at night genius... And if the Sun didn't rise in the morning, wouldn't be long for you to turn into a popsicle --- EVEN WITH increased GHGases.

Returning SOME energy from the atmos to the ground does NOT BUILD "out of control heat". It just LOWERS the amount that escapes back to "space" at any given moment of time.

I agree with your basic sentiment but it is awkwardly phrased and could use some editing.

Awkward phrasing is probably due to the audience. Trust me..

 

[SSDD]

I would probably have more success trying to teach calculus to someone with Down's Syndrome if they were eager to learn. You revel in ignorance.

Rather than strut around trying to show everyone how smart you are...which you clearly aren't because you are still a believer in the magic despite what you can observe with your own eyes...why not address the specific issue I brought up re: roy's logic..that being the input of heat from the sun is described as the difference in flux between the solar input and the surface output { FSun – FSurf(i) } why then would not heat input from the atmosphere be described as the difference between the atmospheric flux and the surface flux { FAtmo(i) – FSurf(i) } rather than being added straight in without regard to the temperature of the surface as his equation { TSurf(i+1) = TSurf(i) + (FSun – FSurf(i) + FAtmo(i))*dT/Cp } states?

Well, I can tell you why he doesn't do it...it is because the resulting calculated temperature will be around -47C.... Aside from that, lets hear your defense for his injecting the heat from the atmosphere into the equation in an entirely different manner than he injects the input from the sun...why is it correct to input heat from the sun as the difference in flux between the solar input and the surface output...but it is not correct to input heat from the atmosphere the same way?...If he is right...then you should have a good explanation...if he isn't..then explain why, if he is correct, the surface temperature isn't around -47C...and since the temperature obviously isn't around 47C...why do you still believe in this voodoo math?

Okay, I'll bite.

Link me up to the criticism of Spencer's math and I'll read when I have the time and inclination.

I already gave you everything pertinent including spencer's original equation

 

[jc456]

Prove it! Why can't you?

I made three declarative statements, and then synthesized a logical conclusion from them that rebutted your opinion that energy returning to the surface from the atmosphere would necessarily cause out of control warming.

Which link(s) in my chain of logic do you dispute, and why? Please be specific.

Dude, if radiation would be returned, and reabsorb as you believe, it would repeat endlessly, that is the fallacy that is gw we don't have out of control heat.

Edit: BTW, I've stated that already!

For every Watt of IR energy that goes back to the ground from greenhouse gases --- there's is simultaneously MORE than a Watt of IR energy going skywards. That's why it gets cold at night genius... And if the Sun didn't rise in the morning, wouldn't be long for you to turn into a popsicle --- EVEN WITH increased GHGases.

Returning SOME energy from the atmos to the ground does NOT BUILD "out of control heat". It just LOWERS the amount that escapes back to "space" at any given moment of time.

one watt in one watt out, is zero, so the surface didn't cool off and it needs to. Cause now there's the next sun day adding more IR to the surface and more IR with more GHGs you start building IR. It seems you miss that aspect of the next sun day. your sending back the day before's energy. Add more CO2 and you get more. Sorry, I don't see it, the earth would have gotten warmer by now by adding 120 PPM of CO2. It didn't. so, hence why I don't believe it. It's all your magic and it doesn't track.

So there's been no warming at all? Is it just convenient to deny everything? Or don't you see that if you add a watt-hr of energy from the sun (at the surface) is exactly the same as adding a watt-hr from reducing the net flow into space?

But you can't validate that can you?

 

[Old Rocks]

This is a wonderfully humorous exchange. Nor only do jc and SSDD believe they are the smartest people on this board, they also believe that they are far more intelligent than many generations of mathematicians, chemists, and physicists. And some ignoramous like Dr. Spencer is not going to change their minds. LOL

 

[SSDD]

This is a wonderfully humorous exchange. Nor only do jc and SSDD believe they are the smartest people on this board, they also believe that they are far more intelligent than many generations of mathematicians, chemists, and physicists. And some ignoramous like Dr. Spencer is not going to change their minds. LOL

And still not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the A in AGW..and yet, you claim "consensus" exists...if it does, then it is religious conviction...not science.