Time to drop a brick of epistemology on a table full of vibes. - Climate change

[Anomalism]

In your mind science is your religion hats because your life has no meaning

That’s an ad hominem, not a counterargument. Attacking my motives or life purpose doesn’t change the physics or the data.

 

[Mushroom]

The funny thing is that I was in a US Army medical unit when all that was going on. We talked about it and how absolutely worthless the mask requirement was and wondering why in the hell nobody was doing the one thing that was most effective in stopping the spread of diseases in the past.

Quarantine.

Now we all wore N95 masks from our own medical supplies, and those do protect from virus particles. But if you are wearing a bandana or joke cloth mask with a funny face on the front, you might as well be wearing nothing.

Before I retired I saw some of the studies the Army had about COVID, and many of us were seriously alarmed. The spread was almost uncontrolled, because there were no quarantines put in place. There were just useless panaceas that made people feel better but did nothing.

We are just lucky that it was nowhere near as lethal as the Spanish Influenza epidemic a century before.

 

[Anomalism]

The funny thing is that I was in a US Army medical unit when all that was going on. We talked about it and how absolutely worthless the mask requirement was and wondering why in the hell nobody was doing the one thing that was most effective in stopping the spread of diseases in the past.

Quarantine.

Now we all wore N95 masks from our own medical supplies, and those do protect from virus particles. But if you are wearing a bandana or joke cloth mask with a funny face on the front, you might as well be wearing nothing.

Before I retired I saw some of the studies the Army had about COVID, and many of us were seriously alarmed. The spread was almost uncontrolled, because there were no quarantines put in place. There were just useless panaceas that made people feel better but did nothing.

We are just lucky that it was nowhere near as lethal as the Spanish Influenza epidemic a century before.

Anyway...

Are you done discussing the physics that support AGW findings?

 

[Anomalism]

 

[ReinyDays]

You’re off about how energy transfer works at the molecular level.

A CO2 molecule absorbing a 15 µm photon doesn’t just sit there in isolation. Once excited, it collides with N2, O2, and other air molecules billions of times per second. Each collision redistributes energy statistically. You don’t need a perfect 0.08 eV match for heat to flow. That’s how the bulk air warms: through the average kinetic energy of molecules. Radiative forcing isn’t about tracking single photons; it’s about how the absorbed energy increases the temperature of the air ensemble.

Latent heat isn’t measured directly by thermometers, true, but thermometers do record temperature changes that occur as energy is added or removed from the system, and the energy required to overcome phase changes affects the temperature evolution. GMST reflects all of this. The instrument responds to the kinetic energy of molecules, which is the net result of radiative input, conduction, convection, and latent energy exchanges. Latent heat is part of the energy budget, not a separate invisible addition. They’re already implicitly included because the energy has to come from somewhere to raise the temperature.

Standard Earth energy budgets include estimates for convection, latent heat, and radiation. They sum to the total net flux that governs surface warming. The effect of CO2 doesn’t require photons to bounce exactly back to the surface; increasing atmospheric CO2 changes how much IR escapes to space versus gets absorbed, which shifts the equilibrium temperature. That’s measurable in satellite data, ocean heat content, and surface temperature trends.

CO2 doesn’t need to act alone or in absurd isolation. Its energy gets fully mixed into the atmosphere through molecular motion and convection, and the cumulative effect is entirely measurable. The quantum details don’t invalidate the bulk thermodynamics or the observed warming.

Let's see the energy budget you're using ... air temperature doesn't include latent heat ... that's a scientific fact ... surface temperature is governed by Stefan-Blotzmann's Law ... temperature is proportional to the fourth root of irradiation ... so what irradiation values are you using? ... the "revenue" side of your energy budget ...

What satellite band are you using as a proxy for temperature? ...

You keep saying you're cooking the books ... but you won't say how you're cooking the books ... sounds like you don't know ...

Latent heat isn’t measured directly by thermometers, true, but thermometers do record temperature changes that occur as energy is added or removed from the system ...

Absolute false ... easily demonstrated ... mix a pint of tap water and a pint of ice ... put it on the burner ... see the temperature fall? ... we're adding energy ... so why is temperature falling? ... a video (0'57") if you're too lazy ...

It takes 2,260 joules of energy to evaporate one gram of water ... that same energy raises a kilogram of air 2.26ºC ... and you're just simply ignoring it ... or "cooking the books" as I believe you said ...

 

[Anomalism]

Let's see the energy budget you're using ... air temperature doesn't include latent heat ... that's a scientific fact ... surface temperature is governed by Stefan-Blotzmann's Law ... temperature is proportional to the fourth root of irradiation ... so what irradiation values are you using? ... the "revenue" side of your energy budget ...

What satellite band are you using as a proxy for temperature? ...

You keep saying you're cooking the books ... but you won't say how you're cooking the books ... sounds like you don't know ...

Latent heat isn’t measured directly by thermometers, true, but thermometers do record temperature changes that occur as energy is added or removed from the system ...

Absolute false ... easily demonstrated ... mix a pint of tap water and a pint of ice ... put it on the burner ... see the temperature fall? ... we're adding energy ... so why is temperature falling? ... a video (0'57") if you're too lazy ...

It takes 2,260 joules of energy to evaporate one gram of water ... that same energy raises a kilogram of air 2.26ºC ... and you're just simply ignoring it ... or "cooking the books" as I believe you said ...

You’re mixing up what thermometers measure with how the energy budget is accounted for. No one claims thermometers directly measure latent heat; they measure kinetic temperature, but latent heat absolutely appears in the energy budget because it controls how much of the incoming radiative energy goes into phase change versus raising temperature.

Your ice example proves the opposite of what you think: the temperature stays near 0C because the added energy is being absorbed as latent heat. That energy is explicitly tracked in climate energy budgets as latent heat flux. Once the phase change is done, the same energy raises temperature again. That’s exactly how the system conserves energy.

And Stefan-Boltzmann doesn’t contradict greenhouse physics, it requires it. The surface emits ~390 W/m2, but satellites measure only ~240 W/m2 escaping to space. The difference is the greenhouse effect, directly observed in spectral bands (especially the CO2 15 µm band) by satellites. That’s the revenue side of the budget: incoming solar (~340 W/m2) minus outgoing longwave (~240 W/m2) leaves a positive imbalance that shows up as rising ocean heat content.

You don’t need to guess it from models. It's measured. Latent heat isn’t being cooked out; it’s one of the main terms in the budget that explains why temperature doesn’t rise even faster.

 

[ReinyDays]

You’re mixing up what thermometers measure with how the energy budget is accounted for. No one claims thermometers directly measure latent heat; they measure kinetic temperature, but latent heat absolutely appears in the energy budget because it controls how much of the incoming radiative energy goes into phase change versus raising temperature.

Your ice example proves the opposite of what you think: the temperature stays near 0C because the added energy is being absorbed as latent heat. That energy is explicitly tracked in climate energy budgets as latent heat flux. Once the phase change is done, the same energy raises temperature again. That’s exactly how the system conserves energy.

And Stefan-Boltzmann doesn’t contradict greenhouse physics, it requires it. The surface emits ~390 W/m2, but satellites measure only ~240 W/m2 escaping to space. The difference is the greenhouse effect, directly observed in spectral bands (especially the CO2 15 µm band) by satellites. That’s the revenue side of the budget: incoming solar (~340 W/m2) minus outgoing longwave (~240 W/m2) leaves a positive imbalance that shows up as rising ocean heat content.

You don’t need to guess it from models. It's measured. Latent heat isn’t being cooked out; it’s one of the main terms in the budget that explains why temperature doesn’t rise even faster.

Still no budget ... that's sad ... all you're measuring is how long your nose is growing ...

Incoming solar is 1,366.1 W/m^2 ... the Solar Constant ... {Citation} ... obviously you don't understand irradiation ... or SB ...

1366.1 + 232.9 = 0 ... where the hell did you learn to add vectors? ... is simple vector addition is going to be a problem for you? ...

 

[ding]

“In the absence of climate feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would cause a global surface warming of about 1.0–1.2C. Including fast feedbacks increases this warming to about 3 C.” - AR6 WGI, FAQ 7.1

“The best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is 3.0 °C… ECS includes the combined effect of fast feedbacks (water vapor, lapse rate, surface albedo, clouds) that amplify the direct radiative forcing.” - AR6 WGI, Ch. 7, Section 7.5

AR4 SYR Section 2.3 also notes: “Climate sensitivity of about 3 °C implies that feedbacks roughly double the warming response relative to the direct radiative forcing alone.”

So the numbers break down like this:

Direct CO2 effect: ~1.0–1.2C

Feedback amplification: ~1.8–2.0C

Total ECS: ~3C

These are not hidden or assumed. They are explicitly quantified in the IPCC reports. The feedbacks are measurable, constrained by observations, and fully incorporated into detection and attribution studies. The direct forcing alone does not account for observed warming; the total warming arises from direct CO2 plus these well-characterized feedbacks.

They are hidden enough such that people are attributing all warming to CO2. I think climate sensitivity is as big of a joke as orbital forcing and is an artifact of the flawed modeling.

 

[ding]

I never claimed imminent catastrophe. In fact, I clarified reality to a left winger that thought that's what the data is saying when it's not. I have been scientifically accurate this entire time, across partisan lines. Too bad you can't say the same.

If you believe that today's rate is unprecedented then I don't see how you can't believe in imminent catastrophe. Think about it. You believe that today's rate of change is greater than any trigger point in the history of the planet. By inspection you are saying 120 ppm of incremental CO2 is worse than any trigger point before it.

 

[ding]

Still no budget ... that's sad ... all you're measuring is how long your nose is growing ...

Incoming solar is 1,366.1 W/m^2 ... the Solar Constant ... {Citation} ... obviously you don't understand irradiation ... or SB ...

1366.1 + 232.9 = 0 ... where the hell did you learn to add vectors? ... is simple vector addition is going to be a problem for you? ...

 

[ReinyDays]

View attachment 1219831

Lower left ... 0.6 W/m^2 is trivial ... this chart includes convection ... well done ... close to a 25% the energy isn't changing temperature at the surface ...

 

[ding]

Lower left ... 0.6 W/m^2 is trivial ... this chart includes convection ... well done ... close to a 25% the energy isn't changing temperature at the surface ...

It's over the entire surface of the planet. What number were you expecting per meter?

 

[ReinyDays]

It's over the entire surface of the planet. What number were you expecting per meter?

Honestly ... 1.8 W/m^2 is what's measured ... give or take 0.5 W/m^2 ... and this "1.8" figure is what the IPCC uses ... this measurement was taken over only 25 years ... so we have no idea what the 20th Century average was ... nothing to compare to ...

Trenberth et al (2009) includes convection in their calculations ... I want to see Anomalism's energy budget ... he's keeping this energy at the surface and I want to see if there's anything in his citation that would explain this neglect, other than his inability to understand the scientific literature ...

Some back-of-the-$100-bill calculation gives us a total of 0.1ºC warming for all the CO2 we've released into the atmosphere ... using your post ... on average ... math is hard, especially for liberals ...

 

[Anomalism]

Still no budget ... that's sad ... all you're measuring is how long your nose is growing ...

Incoming solar is 1,366.1 W/m^2 ... the Solar Constant ... {Citation} ... obviously you don't understand irradiation ... or SB ...

1366.1 + 232.9 = 0 ... where the hell did you learn to add vectors? ... is simple vector addition is going to be a problem for you? ...

You’re mixing the solar constant with the global average energy budget. The 1366 W/m2 value is measured perpendicular to the Sun’s rays at the top of the atmosphere. Earth is a rotating sphere, so when you average that over the entire surface, you divide by 4. That gives ~341 W/m2.

After ~30% reflection from albedo, the absorbed solar is about 240 W/m2. Satellites measure outgoing longwave radiation at roughly the same global average value in equilibrium. That’s the balance.

So no, 1366 + 232 ≠ 0 because you’re comparing fundamentally different quantities. A local instantaneous flux versus a global mean. There’s no vector math problem here. It’s just spherical geometry and conservation of energy.

 

[Anomalism]

If you believe that today's rate is unprecedented then I don't see how you can't believe in imminent catastrophe. Think about it. You believe that today's rate of change is greater than any trigger point in the history of the planet. By inspection you are saying 120 ppm of incremental CO2 is worse than any trigger point before it.

Unprecedented rate does not necessarily equal “mminent catastrophe. That’s a rhetorical leap. A system can change faster than recent natural baselines without crossing some imminent doom threshold.

And I’m not claiming 120 ppm is worse than any trigger point in planetary history. Past trigger points involved different boundary conditions. Context matters. What makes today notable isn’t that CO2 has never been higher, but that it’s rising this quickly in a civilization built around stable Holocene conditions.

 

[Hafar1014]

Unprecedented rate does not necessarily equal “mminent catastrophe. That’s a rhetorical leap. A system can change faster than recent natural baselines without crossing some imminent doom threshold.

And I’m not claiming 120 ppm is worse than any trigger point in planetary history. Past trigger points involved different boundary conditions. Context matters. What makes today notable isn’t that CO2 has never been higher, but that it’s rising this quickly in a civilization built around stable Holocene conditions.

Here comes the biggest snowstorm in decades.

 

[Anomalism]

They are hidden enough such that people are attributing all warming to CO2. I think climate sensitivity is as big of a joke as orbital forcing and is an artifact of the flawed modeling.

Climate sensitivity isn’t some hidden modeling trick. It’s just the quantified temperature response to a known radiative forcing after feedbacks operate.

 

[Anomalism]

Here comes the biggest snowstorm in decades.

You're still stuck at the surface level. You're either being intentionally obtuse, or you simply lack the depth to understand complexity.

 

[Hafar1014]

You're still stuck at the surface level. You're either being intentionally obtuse, or you simply lack the depth to understand complexity.

There is no human caused warming. Renewable energy is dead. Find something real to believe in

 

[Anomalism]

There is no human caused warming. Renewable energy is dead. Find something real to believe in

Great arguments bud.