Solid Physical Evidence of AGW.... Where is it?

[SSDD]

The physical evidence of global warming are found in the parameters of the Earth's climate: GHG trends, temperature trends, sea level trends, snow cover trends, ice extents, sea surface temperatures, etc, etc, etc.

Sorry crick...you have data showing so called GHG trends, but that data shows that an increase in so called GHG's follows warming...and you have no actual data that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...you have data on temperature trends, but none of it indicates that the present climate is in any way out of the ordinary, or even approaches the bounds of natural variability....you have data on sea level trends, snow cover trends, ice trends and sea surface, etc, but it shows that we are not even approaching the boundaries of natural variability....you have plenty of data, but if you want to claim that we are causing the trends, you must hang assumptions, and the output of failed models on your data...you have no evidence that we are causing any changes in the global climate...all you have is evidence that the climate changes....none at all that we are the cause...

 

[Crick]

As is your constant practice, you have no problem claiming behavior in violation of fundamental physics. CO2 absorbs energy radiated from the surface. That energy increases the temperature of the gas. That energy gets passed to other molecules of the air, the ocean and back to the land surface, increasing their temperatures.

You do not deny the planet is warming. Give us a reason why.

 

[jc456]

As is your constant practice, you have no problem claiming behavior in violation of fundamental physics. CO2 absorbs energy radiated from the surface. That energy increases the temperature of the gas. That energy gets passed to other molecules of the air, the ocean and back to the land surface, increasing their temperatures.

You do not deny the planet is warming. Give us a reason why.

how does it increase the temperature? that is and has been my question. you just claimed that when it returns to the surface it increases temperature? how can it be any hotter than when it left? That is the unobserved evidence you can't seem to fondle. and the planet has been cooling.

 

[Crick]

The absorption of a photon or involvement in an molecular collision increase the energy state of that molecule or atom instantly. That increase is expressed kinetically as heat, instantly. Same Shit's claim that CO2 can absorb photons without increasing temperature is absolute nonsense. He seems to think that atoms put photons out in the woodshed and wait for a cold day before throwing them on the fire. When an atom or molecule absorbs a photon, it instantly increases in temperature. If it reemits that photon a nanosecond later, than it decreases in temperature that nanosecond later. It is akin to their idea that energy absorbed at shallow depths in the oceans surface can't find its way deeper. You see this a lot with SSDD and Westwall (and Billy Boy with zettajoules), that they seem to think the universe is restricted to operating in the range scales they personally find comfortable.

Throw a ball straight up in the air. Let's say you give it a velocity at release of 32 feet/second. From the instant you release it, you no longer have any ability to affect its speed. It is now subject to gravity and air resistance, which we shall ignore. The force of gravity, of course, is downward. The result of the application of a force on a mass is the acceleration of that mass. Although initially the ball is traveling upward, it is accelerating downward. We use the word decelerate for a state of acceleration in opposition to motion. The ball will accelerate at -32 ft / second / second (or -32 ft/sec^2 (or -32 ft sec^-2)) constantly, from the instant you release it till the instant it strikes the ground, regardless of it's velocity (ie motion in a direction) over that period. Over the first second, the ball will decelerate from 32 ft / second to a speed of 0. For the next second and a little bit longer (depending how tall you are*) it will accelerate and strike the ground at something a little over the 32 ft / second at which you threw it.

The difference between an Earth with no greenhouse gases and the one we have is that a significant portion of the thermal energy developed in the Earth's surface by the direct absorption of solar radiation, then reemitted upward, is absorbed by water vapor, CO2, CH4 and other greenhouse gases. On a planet with no greenhouse gases, that energy is transmitted at the speed of light into space. None of it stays and warms the atmosphere. None of it finds it way back down to the surface. The difference between the two is 33 centigrade degrees (59.4F)

* At 2 seconds, the ball is back at the height at which you released it when you threw. It still has to travel a little further to reach the ground. During that time it will be accelerating at the same 32 ft sec^-2

 

[IanC]

how does it increase the temperature? that is and has been my question. you just claimed that when it returns to the surface it increases temperature? how can it be any hotter than when it left?

Why do you keep asking the same question when you have failed to comprehend the answer every time in the past?

It is solar isolation that actually delivers energy to the surface. CO2 'warms' the surface by retarding energy loss to space.

Speaking of retarded...

 

[Billy_Bob]

The absorption of a photon or involvement in an molecular collision increase the energy state of that molecule or atom instantly. That increase is expressed kinetically as heat, instantly. Same Shit's claim that CO2 can absorb photons without increasing temperature is absolute nonsense. He seems to think that atoms put photons out in the woodshed and wait for a cold day before throwing them on the fire. When an atom or molecule absorbs a photon, it instantly increases in temperature. If it reemits that photon a nanosecond later, than it decreases in temperature that nanosecond later. It is akin to their idea that energy absorbed at shallow depths in the oceans surface can't find its way deeper. You see this a lot with SSDD and Westwall (and Billy Boy with zettajoules), that they seem to think the universe is restricted to operating in the range scales they personally find comfortable.

Throw a ball straight up in the air. Let's say you give it a velocity at release of 32 feet/second. From the instant you release it, you no longer have any ability to affect its speed. It is now subject to gravity and air resistance, which we shall ignore. The force of gravity, of course, is downward. The result of the application of a force on a mass is the acceleration of that mass. Although initially the ball is traveling upward, it is accelerating downward. We use the word decelerate for a state of acceleration in opposition to motion. The ball will accelerate at -32 ft / second / second (or -32 ft/sec^2 (or -32 ft sec^-2)) constantly, from the instant you release it till the instant it strikes the ground, regardless of it's velocity (ie motion in a direction) over that period. Over the first second, the ball will decelerate from 32 ft / second to a speed of 0. For the next second and a little bit longer (depending how tall you are*) it will accelerate and strike the ground at something a little over the 32 ft / second at which you threw it.

The difference between an Earth with no greenhouse gases and the one we have is that a significant portion of the thermal energy developed in the Earth's surface by the direct absorption of solar radiation, then reemitted upward, is absorbed by water vapor, CO2, CH4 and other greenhouse gases. On a planet with no greenhouse gases, that energy is transmitted at the speed of light into space. None of it stays and warms the atmosphere. None of it finds it way back down to the surface. The difference between the two is 33 centigrade degrees (59.4F)

* At 2 seconds, the ball is back at the height at which you released it when you threw. It still has to travel a little further to reach the ground. During that time it will be accelerating at the same 32 ft sec^-2

So molecular collision happens, dispersing energy kinetically, in all but 1/300,000,000 photons. This means it is passing energy through collisions to other molecules in the mass and not radiating anything... The primary molecule near ground is water vapor. Thus 1/300,000,000 is escaping by LWIR emitting and the rest is leaving by conduction an convection..

You have a serious math issue Crick.. Your primary driver is not capable of what you claim.

 

[IanC]

The primary molecule near ground is water vapor.

What is that supposed to mean? That lighter water molecules have somehow displaced most of the heavier nitrogen molecules?

Do you ever read what you are writing?

 

[SSDD]

As is your constant practice, you have no problem claiming behavior in violation of fundamental physics. CO2 absorbs energy radiated from the surface. That energy increases the temperature of the gas. That energy gets passed to other molecules of the air, the ocean and back to the land surface, increasing their temperatures.

You do not deny the planet is warming. Give us a reason why.

Sorry skidmark...just not so. But if you have any observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, by all means...lets see it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

As is your constant practice, you have no problem claiming behavior in violation of fundamental physics. CO2 absorbs energy radiated from the surface. That energy increases the temperature of the gas. That energy gets passed to other molecules of the air, the ocean and back to the land surface, increasing their temperatures.

You do not deny the planet is warming. Give us a reason why.

You fail to understand the mechanical functions and actions of our atmosphere.

SO lets explore your fantasy warming...

Please tell me how you stopped natural variation and made sure that all warming post 1950 was man made. The two rates of warming are almost indistinguishable from one another. Their total difference is less than 0.03 deg C

SO please show me, by empirical evidence, the following;

1. How you stopped natural variation. According to the IPCC, the 1900-1950 rate of warming is natural and therefore the base rate of natural variation for our current time period given total solar output.

2. How you concluded that all of the warming post 1950 is man made.

3. What the result of a120ppm rise since 1890 has done, how you ruled out naturally occurring out-gasing of the oceans, due to warming, and how you ruled out solar spectral shift.

 

[SSDD]

The primary molecule near ground is water vapor.

What is that supposed to mean? That lighter water molecules have somehow displaced most of the heavier nitrogen molecules?

Do you ever read what you are writing?

The point is, that radiation is not the primary means of moving energy through the troposphere....therefore, no radiative greenhouse effect. If you want to describe a conductive greenhouse effect driven by atmospheric pressure, then you will be on the right track.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The primary molecule near ground is water vapor.

What is that supposed to mean? That lighter water molecules have somehow displaced most of the heavier nitrogen molecules?

Do you ever read what you are writing?

You can not grasp simple concepts.. Tell me Ian, where is water vapor the greatest in our atmosphere?

The first three meters above ground level.

This means that your energy is being moved by water vapor and not CO2. CO2 is a bit player.

 

[Crick]

As is your constant practice, you have no problem claiming behavior in violation of fundamental physics. CO2 absorbs energy radiated from the surface. That energy increases the temperature of the gas. That energy gets passed to other molecules of the air, the ocean and back to the land surface, increasing their temperatures.

You do not deny the planet is warming. Give us a reason why.

Sorry skidmark...just not so. But if you have any observed measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, by all means...lets see it.

 

[Crick]

CO2 being warmed by infrared

http://www.physics.upenn.edu/~pcn/Ms/18PhysTeacher.pdf

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 being warmed by infrared

http://www.physics.upenn.edu/~pcn/Ms/18PhysTeacher.pdf

Tell me Crick, what band of IR was he using? What was the radiative power being used? What was the CO2 concentration level?

 

[Flash]

The Environmental Wackos can't prove AGW so they fabricate data and almost always get caught at it.

They aren't that bright.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The greenhouse effect warms the planet by slowing the release of IR, not trapping it forever. As you have noted, as the Earth's temperature has gone up, its OLR has increased. You seem to have missed the critical sup-phrase: "...as the Earth's temperature has gone up"

Actually it doesn't slow the release of IR because if it did, the predicted hot spot would be the inevitable result...there is no hot spot...and slowed cooling does not equal warming...it is not possible for a body to warm itself with its own radiation..if you believe it can, then show me the physical law that says as much.

Actually it doesn't slow the release of IR because if it did,

Every photon of IR that is absorbed by a GHG molecule, instead of instantly escaping into space, is slowed.

and slowed cooling does not equal warming

DERP!

it is not possible for a body to warm itself with its own radiation..

https://ladygeekgirl.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/startrekspockfascinating1.jpg

The greenhouse effect warms the planet by slowing the release of IR, not trapping it forever. As you have noted, as the Earth's temperature has gone up, its OLR has increased. You seem to have missed the critical sup-phrase: "...as the Earth's temperature has gone up"

Actually it doesn't slow the release of IR because if it did, the predicted hot spot would be the inevitable result...there is no hot spot...and slowed cooling does not equal warming...it is not possible for a body to warm itself with its own radiation..if you believe it can, then show me the physical law that says as much.

Actually it doesn't slow the release of IR because if it did,

Every photon of IR that is absorbed by a GHG molecule, instead of instantly escaping into space, is slowed.

and slowed cooling does not equal warming

DERP!

it is not possible for a body to warm itself with its own radiation..

. It's not warming "with its own radiation", it's warming because the solar radiation escapes more slowly. .

Come on Todd, anything that emits from CO2 is a neutral or COOLING process, then you say this confusion:

"it's warming because the solar radiation escapes more slowly. "

Not it means cooling down more slowly, there is no actual increase in warming at all since molecules don't generate any heat by itself. With an increase in CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is an increase in emission rate back to outer space.

I posted HERE that any increase in the postulated warm forcing of CO2 is more than countered by the system energy OUTFLOW from the planet. CO2 increase in the air isn't stopping the increased outflow of energy as clearly shown by Satellites.

Come on Todd, anything that emits from CO2 is a neutral or COOLING process,

You don't think that the CO2 in the atmosphere speeds the escape of IR from the surface, do you?

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 being warmed by infrared

http://www.physics.upenn.edu/~pcn/Ms/18PhysTeacher.pdf

Tell me Crick, what band of IR was he using? What was the radiative power being used? What was the CO2 concentration level?

1. Near UV energy was used... Significantly above black body temperature +90 deg C.. Your trying to tell us that near UV (in the IR spectrum) warms CO2 for a brief second.. LOL It should, as it is in the down-welling band from the sun and not the upwelling band from the earth.

2. Wattages used are the equivalent of 1356w/m^2, 10 times that of what the earth receives at earths surface. Another logic fail...

3. Pure CO2 was used.. 100% atmosphere of CO2...

Funnier still is standard atmosphere shows no warming in their tube even with these exaggerated powers and bands...

Crick just proved my experiment correct and he is totally ignorant of it. Priceless.. Even in their own experiments using the standard atmosphere, at ground level, it shows no ability for LWIR to warm anything with in it.

http://www.physics.upenn.edu/~pcn/Ms/18PhysTeacher.pdf

 

[jc456]

how does it increase the temperature? that is and has been my question. you just claimed that when it returns to the surface it increases temperature? how can it be any hotter than when it left?

Why do you keep asking the same question when you have failed to comprehend the answer every time in the past?

It is solar isolation that actually delivers energy to the surface. CO2 'warms' the surface by retarding energy loss to space.

Speaking of retarded...

no, something can't get warmer because you slow the release. It may stay warm longer over time, but it doesn't get warmer, it is cooling off. it is emitting. and if you agree emitting is cooling, then you can't make the statement you just made. sorry Ian, you can't prove it gets warmer.

 

[Crick]

CO2 being warmed by infrared

http://www.physics.upenn.edu/~pcn/Ms/18PhysTeacher.pdf

Tell me Crick, what band of IR was he using? What was the radiative power being used? What was the CO2 concentration level?

The claim is that CO2 cannot be warmed by infrared radiation. You are clearly attempting to weasel out of that claim.

 

[Crick]

The Environmental Wackos can't prove AGW so they fabricate data and almost always get caught at it.

They aren't that bright.

AGW is supported by mountains of evidence. The contentions of deniers are not. When was the last time you posted a link to a published scientific study supporting your position?