To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[mamooth]

No, you clearly DON'T get it. Heat rises. Please show us the physics defying science that supports the silly concept that somehow heat is carried into the deep ocean where it somehow magically resides in defiance of every physical law we know of.

I just explained that all in detail.

And in response, you're ignoring the explanation and babbling "but heat rises!", something that has nothing to do with the situation.

Maybe if you ignore gravity, that will go away too. Keep trying. Just understand that the world is ignoring you.

 

[Wuwei]

Yes, it does fail. IR can not penetrate deep enough into the oceans to warm anything. Heat rises, a physical law that warmists seem to wish to ignore.

No warmist believes that heat does not rise, nor do they ignore that. Where are you getting that?

This is a fact of simple science: Day and night, the earth is pouring out around 400 watts per square centimeter largely from the top few microns - ocean or land. Do you disagree with that?

 

[Wyatt earp]

How about the very mechanism of warming shows AGW theory to be a failure.

This nonsense again? Guess I'll just have to debunk same as I did before.

Another Climate Alarmist Lets It Slip: Why They Want To Scare You

This is the temperature profile of most spots in the ocean. Note the vertical scale is sort of logarithmic.

The bulk of solar energy penetrates deeply and warms the water. Convection causes warmer water to rise, so the oceans get warmer as they get shallower.

However, that trend reverses at the skin layer. The atmosphere is usually colder than the ocean below, so the ocean at the surface loses heat to the cooler atmosphere, which lowers the temperature of the skin layer by about 1C.

The amount of heat flowing out the oceans, from combined conduction and evaporation, depends on the delta-T across that skin layer. Heat conducts from hot to cold, linearly proportionally to the temperature difference. With more of a temperature gradient, more heat flows out of the oceans. Less of a gradient, less outflow.

Enter the IR radiation. It heats the skin layer, decreasing the delta-T across the skin layer, so less heat flows out of the oceans. The IR doesn't heat the deeper ocean directly. It reduces the heat flow out of the deeper ocean, so more heat stays in the deeper ocean, so the IR indirectly warms the deeper ocean.

UV radiation penetrates 500 meters deep into the ocean to warm it. The oceans govern the heat of the planet. Long wave IR (the claimed engine of warming) is not capable of penetrating the skin of the water, thus the theory fails its very first test.

Yes, we get it. You think conservation of energy is a suggestion, not a law, and you can ignore it whenever convenient for you. In your world, the backradiation strikes the ocean ... and then the energy just disappears into some magical mystery dimension. You ought to write a paper on the physics behind that.

No, you clearly DON'T get it. Heat rises. Please show us the physics defying science that supports the silly concept that somehow heat is carried into the deep ocean where it somehow magically resides in defiance of every physical law we know of.

When ai first read about this I laughed my ass off. Who would believe something so gullible?????

 

[westwall]

Yes, it does fail. IR can not penetrate deep enough into the oceans to warm anything. Heat rises, a physical law that warmists seem to wish to ignore.

No warmist believes that heat does not rise, nor do they ignore that. Where are you getting that?

This is a fact of simple science: Day and night, the earth is pouring out around 400 watts per square centimeter largely from the top few microns - ocean or land. Do you disagree with that?

You better tell that to trenberth and his assertion that the so called missing heat was carried deep under water.

 

[Wuwei]

Yes, it does fail. IR can not penetrate deep enough into the oceans to warm anything. Heat rises, a physical law that warmists seem to wish to ignore.

No warmist believes that heat does not rise, nor do they ignore that. Where are you getting that?

This is a fact of simple science: Day and night, the earth is pouring out around 400 watts per square centimeter largely from the top few microns - ocean or land. Do you disagree with that?

You better tell that trenberth and his assertion that the so called missing heat was carried deep under water.

The fact that the earth is pouring out around 400 watts per square centimeter of thermal radiation is a simple matter of the Stefan-Boltzman law established 150 years ago. That was long before Trenberth was born. Do you disagree with the 400 W figure?

 

[westwall]

Yes, it does fail. IR can not penetrate deep enough into the oceans to warm anything. Heat rises, a physical law that warmists seem to wish to ignore.

No warmist believes that heat does not rise, nor do they ignore that. Where are you getting that?

This is a fact of simple science: Day and night, the earth is pouring out around 400 watts per square centimeter largely from the top few microns - ocean or land. Do you disagree with that?

You better tell that trenberth and his assertion that the so called missing heat was carried deep under water.

The fact that the earth is pouring out around 400 watts per square centimeter of thermal radiation is a simple matter of the Stefan-Boltzman law established 150 years ago. That was long before Trenberth was born. Do you disagree with the 400 W figure?

No, I don't. Depending on the region of the planet the output ranges from 187 to 426 W/square meter.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you're saying that there are too many variables to control an experiment, then the notion that man-made whatever you call it is driving the climate is nothing more than your gut feel, right

No. I have never claimed that man is driving the climate. I was pointing out where some of you guys had the science wrong. If you think I said anything from gut feel, let me know what it is you think.

Science? Do you even know what the word means?

 

[jc456]

If you're saying that there are too many variables to control an experiment, then the notion that man-made whatever you call it is driving the climate is nothing more than your gut feel, right

No. I have never claimed that man is driving the climate. I was pointing out where some of you guys had the science wrong. If you think I said anything from gut feel, let me know what it is you think.

Well let me just say, if everything worked the way that it looks like on paper, we would never ever have to test anything. It's why we do though, because not everything does work like it looks like on paper.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

and you can show us what happens in the lab when you increase the ghgs by that amount, right?

Well, yes. Many experiments have been done to quantify the absorption spectrum of CO2 and other atmospheric gases. If you head over to the HITRAN database and go to the documentation, it lists 77 sources just for CO2, and around a thousand sources for all atmospheric gases.

HITRAN

And that's why you look so utterly delusional for claiming no experiments have been done.

Hitran hit n run...not an experiment controlling for CO2

 

[Wuwei]

No, I don't. Depending on the region of the planet the output ranges from 187 to 426 W/square meter.

Your number 187 W corresponds to a bitter cold -35 deg C and your 426 number corresponds to a room temperature 70 deg. Where did you get that? That is a rather weird representation of the range of the earth temperatures. Yes, the earth can get as cold as -35 at the poles, but it can easily get to 120 deg F which is a whopping 610 W/sq meter. What was your source that had such a low-ball on both the upper limit and the lower limit?

The usual temperature used for earth radiation is the average global temperature, around 15 deg C. That leads to 391 W/Sq meter.

From NASA ... Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget : Feature Articles

Of the 340 watts per square meter of solar energy that falls on the Earth, 29% is reflected back into space,.... About 23% of incoming energy is absorbed in the atmosphere.... The remaining 48% is absorbed at the surface.
​

The energy hitting the earth surface is 340 W/sq meter times 48% = 163 W/sq meter.

I am not arguing AGW one way or another here. It is very simple, basic, well understood physics. The question you must answer to yourself is how can the earth be radiating thermal IR at 391 W/sq meter while absorbing a measly 163 W/sq meter of short wave visible and UV from the sun.

 

[elektra]

No, I don't. Depending on the region of the planet the output ranges from 187 to 426 W/square meter.

Your number 187 W corresponds to a bitter cold -35 deg C and your 426 number corresponds to a room temperature 70 deg. Where did you get that? That is a rather weird representation of the range of the earth temperatures. Yes, the earth can get as cold as -35 at the poles, but it can easily get to 120 deg F which is a whopping 610 W/sq meter. What was your source that had such a low-ball on both the upper limit and the lower limit?

The usual temperature used for earth radiation is the average global temperature, around 15 deg C. That leads to 391 W/Sq meter.

From NASA ... Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget : Feature Articles

Of the 340 watts per square meter of solar energy that falls on the Earth, 29% is reflected back into space,.... About 23% of incoming energy is absorbed in the atmosphere.... The remaining 48% is absorbed at the surface.
​

The energy hitting the earth surface is 340 W/sq meter times 48% = 163 W/sq meter.

I am not arguing AGW one way or another here. It is very simple, basic, well understood physics. The question you must answer to yourself is how can the earth be radiating thermal IR at 391 W/sq meter while absorbing a measly 163 W/sq meter of short wave visible and UV from the sun.

The Earth can easily reach 120 deg F? Actually, it can't, easily reach 120 deg F, you could say it can easily reach 63 deg F, but 120 def F. is not so easily reached.

 

[jc456]

No, I don't. Depending on the region of the planet the output ranges from 187 to 426 W/square meter.

Your number 187 W corresponds to a bitter cold -35 deg C and your 426 number corresponds to a room temperature 70 deg. Where did you get that? That is a rather weird representation of the range of the earth temperatures. Yes, the earth can get as cold as -35 at the poles, but it can easily get to 120 deg F which is a whopping 610 W/sq meter. What was your source that had such a low-ball on both the upper limit and the lower limit?

The usual temperature used for earth radiation is the average global temperature, around 15 deg C. That leads to 391 W/Sq meter.

From NASA ... Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget : Feature Articles

Of the 340 watts per square meter of solar energy that falls on the Earth, 29% is reflected back into space,.... About 23% of incoming energy is absorbed in the atmosphere.... The remaining 48% is absorbed at the surface.
​

The energy hitting the earth surface is 340 W/sq meter times 48% = 163 W/sq meter.

I am not arguing AGW one way or another here. It is very simple, basic, well understood physics. The question you must answer to yourself is how can the earth be radiating thermal IR at 391 W/sq meter while absorbing a measly 163 W/sq meter of short wave visible and UV from the sun.

The Earth can easily reach 120 deg F? Actually, it can't, easily reach 120 deg F, you could say it can easily reach 63 deg F, but 120 def F. is not so easily reached.

Well the earth obviously can be any temperature at anytime if one is a warmer

 

[Wuwei]

No, I don't. Depending on the region of the planet the output ranges from 187 to 426 W/square meter.

Your number 187 W corresponds to a bitter cold -35 deg C and your 426 number corresponds to a room temperature 70 deg. Where did you get that? That is a rather weird representation of the range of the earth temperatures. Yes, the earth can get as cold as -35 at the poles, but it can easily get to 120 deg F which is a whopping 610 W/sq meter. What was your source that had such a low-ball on both the upper limit and the lower limit?

The usual temperature used for earth radiation is the average global temperature, around 15 deg C. That leads to 391 W/Sq meter.

From NASA ... Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget : Feature Articles

Of the 340 watts per square meter of solar energy that falls on the Earth, 29% is reflected back into space,.... About 23% of incoming energy is absorbed in the atmosphere.... The remaining 48% is absorbed at the surface.
​

The energy hitting the earth surface is 340 W/sq meter times 48% = 163 W/sq meter.

I am not arguing AGW one way or another here. It is very simple, basic, well understood physics. The question you must answer to yourself is how can the earth be radiating thermal IR at 391 W/sq meter while absorbing a measly 163 W/sq meter of short wave visible and UV from the sun.

The Earth can easily reach 120 deg F? Actually, it can't, easily reach 120 deg F, you could say it can easily reach 63 deg F, but 120 def F. is not so easily reached.

Don't complain to me. Complain to westwall. Look at the context. He quoted radiation intensities corresponding to temperatures ranging from -35 C to room temperature. He low-balled the earth's coldest range. Why didn't he also high-ball the upper range, 120 degrees. But neither is very meaningful when it's the average radiation output of the earth that is the topic. Look at the context and whine to westwall.

 

[Wuwei]

Well the earth obviously can be any temperature at anytime if one is a warmer

You should whine to westwall. He is the one who brought up the huge range.
You, elektra and westwall are distracted from the basic question:

The question you must answer for yourself is how can the earth be radiating thermal IR at 391 W/sq meter while absorbing a measly 163 W/sq meter of short wave (visible and UV) from the sun.

That has nothing to do with AGW. It is a basic science question that you don't understand. But you keep diverting it to AGW which is irrelevant.

 

[Crick]

No, I don't. Depending on the region of the planet the output ranges from 187 to 426 W/square meter.

Your number 187 W corresponds to a bitter cold -35 deg C and your 426 number corresponds to a room temperature 70 deg. Where did you get that? That is a rather weird representation of the range of the earth temperatures. Yes, the earth can get as cold as -35 at the poles, but it can easily get to 120 deg F which is a whopping 610 W/sq meter. What was your source that had such a low-ball on both the upper limit and the lower limit?

The usual temperature used for earth radiation is the average global temperature, around 15 deg C. That leads to 391 W/Sq meter.

From NASA ... Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget : Feature Articles

Of the 340 watts per square meter of solar energy that falls on the Earth, 29% is reflected back into space,.... About 23% of incoming energy is absorbed in the atmosphere.... The remaining 48% is absorbed at the surface.
​

The energy hitting the earth surface is 340 W/sq meter times 48% = 163 W/sq meter.

I am not arguing AGW one way or another here. It is very simple, basic, well understood physics. The question you must answer to yourself is how can the earth be radiating thermal IR at 391 W/sq meter while absorbing a measly 163 W/sq meter of short wave visible and UV from the sun.

The Earth can easily reach 120 deg F? Actually, it can't, easily reach 120 deg F, you could say it can easily reach 63 deg F, but 120 def F. is not so easily reached.

I'd guess as much of the earth as reaches -35F reaches 120F

 

[westwall]

Well the earth obviously can be any temperature at anytime if one is a warmer

You should whine to westwall. He is the one who brought up the huge range.
You, elektra and westwall are distracted from the basic question:

The question you must answer for yourself is how can the earth be radiating thermal IR at 391 W/sq meter while absorbing a measly 163 W/sq meter of short wave (visible and UV) from the sun.

That has nothing to do with AGW. It is a basic science question that you don't understand. But you keep diverting it to AGW which is irrelevant.

Wrong. The basic question is what actually warms the planet. That is a well known fact. The oceans warm the planet. What warms the oceans? That too is well known. That is UV radiation that penetrates deeply into the ocean and warms the top 500 meters. That top 500 meters of ocean water is what regulates the global temperature.

Long Wave IR, the supposed mechanism of global warming can't penetrate a single millimeter into the oceans. Thus, all the rest of what you are posting is simply worthless.

That is the fact of global warming and the lack of mans influence upon it.

 

[jc456]

Well the earth obviously can be any temperature at anytime if one is a warmer

You should whine to westwall. He is the one who brought up the huge range.
You, elektra and westwall are distracted from the basic question:

The question you must answer for yourself is how can the earth be radiating thermal IR at 391 W/sq meter while absorbing a measly 163 W/sq meter of short wave (visible and UV) from the sun.

That has nothing to do with AGW. It is a basic science question that you don't understand. But you keep diverting it to AGW which is irrelevant.

Why, he's not manufacturing data sets and claiming warmest evah! Hahahahahaha

 

[jc456]

Well the earth obviously can be any temperature at anytime if one is a warmer

You should whine to westwall. He is the one who brought up the huge range.
You, elektra and westwall are distracted from the basic question:

The question you must answer for yourself is how can the earth be radiating thermal IR at 391 W/sq meter while absorbing a measly 163 W/sq meter of short wave (visible and UV) from the sun.

That has nothing to do with AGW. It is a basic science question that you don't understand. But you keep diverting it to AGW which is irrelevant.

I do? I'm one of many calling bullshit. So you have me confused with someone else.

 

[elektra]

No, I don't. Depending on the region of the planet the output ranges from 187 to 426 W/square meter.

Your number 187 W corresponds to a bitter cold -35 deg C and your 426 number corresponds to a room temperature 70 deg. Where did you get that? That is a rather weird representation of the range of the earth temperatures. Yes, the earth can get as cold as -35 at the poles, but it can easily get to 120 deg F which is a whopping 610 W/sq meter. What was your source that had such a low-ball on both the upper limit and the lower limit?

The usual temperature used for earth radiation is the average global temperature, around 15 deg C. That leads to 391 W/Sq meter.

From NASA ... Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget : Feature Articles

Of the 340 watts per square meter of solar energy that falls on the Earth, 29% is reflected back into space,.... About 23% of incoming energy is absorbed in the atmosphere.... The remaining 48% is absorbed at the surface.
​

The energy hitting the earth surface is 340 W/sq meter times 48% = 163 W/sq meter.

I am not arguing AGW one way or another here. It is very simple, basic, well understood physics. The question you must answer to yourself is how can the earth be radiating thermal IR at 391 W/sq meter while absorbing a measly 163 W/sq meter of short wave visible and UV from the sun.

The Earth can easily reach 120 deg F? Actually, it can't, easily reach 120 deg F, you could say it can easily reach 63 deg F, but 120 def F. is not so easily reached.

Don't complain to me. Complain to westwall. Look at the context. He quoted radiation intensities corresponding to temperatures ranging from -35 C to room temperature. He low-balled the earth's coldest range. Why didn't he also high-ball the upper range, 120 degrees. But neither is very meaningful when it's the average radiation output of the earth that is the topic. Look at the context and whine to westwall.

Okay.

 

[elektra]

No, I don't. Depending on the region of the planet the output ranges from 187 to 426 W/square meter.

Your number 187 W corresponds to a bitter cold -35 deg C and your 426 number corresponds to a room temperature 70 deg. Where did you get that? That is a rather weird representation of the range of the earth temperatures. Yes, the earth can get as cold as -35 at the poles, but it can easily get to 120 deg F which is a whopping 610 W/sq meter. What was your source that had such a low-ball on both the upper limit and the lower limit?

The usual temperature used for earth radiation is the average global temperature, around 15 deg C. That leads to 391 W/Sq meter.

From NASA ... Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget : Feature Articles

Of the 340 watts per square meter of solar energy that falls on the Earth, 29% is reflected back into space,.... About 23% of incoming energy is absorbed in the atmosphere.... The remaining 48% is absorbed at the surface.
​

The energy hitting the earth surface is 340 W/sq meter times 48% = 163 W/sq meter.

I am not arguing AGW one way or another here. It is very simple, basic, well understood physics. The question you must answer to yourself is how can the earth be radiating thermal IR at 391 W/sq meter while absorbing a measly 163 W/sq meter of short wave visible and UV from the sun.

The Earth can easily reach 120 deg F? Actually, it can't, easily reach 120 deg F, you could say it can easily reach 63 deg F, but 120 def F. is not so easily reached.

I'd guess as much of the earth as reaches -35F reaches 120F

You would be guessing wrong.