What Do YOU Believe is Actually Happening?

[jc456]

First, the SB equation is inappropriately applied to the whole business of atmospheric physics.

The SB equation shows that all objects can radiate toward each other no matter the temperature difference. That happens in atmospheric physics.

Second, neither the surface off the earth, nor the atmosphere are black bodies.

Emissivity is accounted for in the SB equation.

if backscatter happened as claimed, the tropospheric hot spot would be the inescapable result...no hot spot exists.. still the hypothesis fails.

Not true. See Crick's explanation.

Care to address then?

I get it, but how does back radiation make the air hotter? It's the only way man could cause global warming agree?

 

[Wuwei]

I get it, but how does back radiation make the air hotter? It's the only way man could cause global warming agree?

It's not quite accurate to say that back radiation makes the air hotter. Back radiation keeps the earth surface from loosing as much heat as it would otherwise. Since the atmosphere is thermally coupled to the earth, the air will not be as cold as it otherwise would be either.

 

[SSDD]

I get it, but how does back radiation make the air hotter? It's the only way man could cause global warming agree?

It's not quite accurate to say that back radiation makes the air hotter. Back radiation keeps the earth surface from loosing as much heat as it would otherwise. Since the atmosphere is thermally coupled to the earth, the air will not be as cold as it otherwise would be either.

And yet, no tropospheric hot spot has materialized which is the most fundamental prediction of the AGW hypothesis....how many fundamental predictive failures must a hypothesis suffer, in your mind, before it is scrapped?

 

[jc456]

I get it, but how does back radiation make the air hotter? It's the only way man could cause global warming agree?

It's not quite accurate to say that back radiation makes the air hotter. Back radiation keeps the earth surface from loosing as much heat as it would otherwise. Since the atmosphere is thermally coupled to the earth, the air will not be as cold as it otherwise would be either.

but the sun can only make it so warm, how does earth get warmer than the sun makes it? Please explain how CO2 makes the air hotter.

 

[Wuwei]

And yet, no tropospheric hot spot has materialized which is the most fundamental prediction of the AGW hypothesis....how many fundamental predictive failures must a hypothesis suffer, in your mind, before it is scrapped?

I'm talking about results of the SB equation. Crick already answered your question. The hot spot is not a fundamental prediction of AGW.

 

[Wuwei]

but the sun can only make it so warm, how does it get warmer than the sun and make something man's fault? Please explain how CO2 makes the air hotter.

If there were no GHG's such as H2O etc. The earth would radiate a great deal of the heat that the sun inputs. It is estimated that the earth would have an average temperature well below zero and would be frozen for the most part without GHG's of any kind.

The input radiation from the sun to the earth is largely visible and UV. The output radiation from the earth would be long wave because it is rather cold compared to the sun. It's the long wave radiation from the earth that is backscattered by the GHG's. The GHG's keep the earth's outgoing long wave radiation in check. That is what keeps the earth from going below zero everywhere. That is why I earlier said back radiation keeps the earth surface from loosing as much heat as it would otherwise.

If it weren't for backradiation, the air would be frigid because the earth would be frigid.

 

[IanC]

Right. Nobody should ever believe that.
What physicists believe is that back radiation prevents a hotter body from losing as much heat as it would without back radiation.

so sir, if you agree that back radiation doesn't make an object hotter, how does CO2 cause more warming? The sun heats the planet and the government funded scientists who believe CO2 causes the planet to get hotter than the sun rays are wrong. Right?

What physicists believe is that back radiation prevents a hotter body from losing as much heat as it would without back radiation.

I get it, but how does back radiation make the air hotter? It's the only way man could cause global warming agree?

You're finally starting to ask the right questions.

Ian, that's been my question since day one, I've never stopped asking prove CO2 makes the air hotter. To date, crickets.

The reason for the back radiation issue I have is that none of the claims show it makes the air hotter. Nothing put on this forum to date.

But hey, thanks,

I have explained this at least a dozen times...

Baby steps. The surface radiates 400W on average. Roughly 8% of that is at 15 microns where CO2 intercepts it. What would happen if that 8% simply escaped to space at the speed of light? The surface would cool because the temperature is a function of input minus output. Think about that for a while.

Next, some people claim that because CO2 emits as well as absorbs, therefore it makes no difference. Think about how a toaster works. The initial energy goes into filling the heatsink. The bread only toasts once the whole thing is up to temperature, even though the input is constant. Once the input stops there is still energy being released, from the heatsink.

Get back to me with questions on these first basic steps.

 

[SSDD]

First, the SB equation is inappropriately applied to the whole business of atmospheric physics.

The SB equation shows that all objects can radiate toward each other no matter the temperature difference. That happens in atmospheric physics.

The SB equation shows no such thing. In its fundamental form it states that in a vacuum, the amount of radiation emitted by a black body per second of its area is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. It its more common form which shows a radiator emitting into its cooler surroundings it states that the amount of radiation emitted by the radiator is equal to its emissivity, times the SB constant times the area of the radiator times the difference between the temperature of the radiator to the 4th power and the temperature of the surroundings to the 4th power)......that is all that it states....nothing more....nothing less.

Emissivity is accounted for in the SB equation.

And precisely, what is the emissivity of the earth and its atmosphere? Don't know do you?...that's all right...no one does...Emissivity figures are assumptions...not known numbers....there goes another monkey wrench into your belief system.

Not true. See Crick's explanation.

Crick is an idiot child....he...and the rest of you warmers have no problem pointing out the cooling stratosphere which was predicted by the AGW hypothesis...problem is, that you can't accept one prediction that happens and then reject the other more important failure. Crick is relying on a comic book author for his climate science...cook went way out on a limb when he suggested that the hot spot wasn't caused by the greenhouse effect..his heroes disagree with him.. Look in the IPCC AR4, Chapter 8, or read Hansen et al 1984 : they call it “Water Vapor” feedback. The IPCC (for a change) don’t mince words, “Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.” Hansen is specific in his 1984 paper. His reference to “infrared opacity” is another way of saying “greenhouse effect”: "Water vapor feedback arises from the ability of the atmosphere to hold more water vapor as temperature increases. The added water vapor increases the infrared opacity of the atmosphere, raising the mean level of infrared emission to space to greater altitude, where it is colder."

Every important GCM has predicted a tropospheric hot spot...it is a fundamental prediction made by the AGW hypothesis....it has failed....again, how many fundamental predictive errors do you believe a hypothesis should get before it is scrapped?

 

[SSDD]

so sir, if you agree that back radiation doesn't make an object hotter, how does CO2 cause more warming? The sun heats the planet and the government funded scientists who believe CO2 causes the planet to get hotter than the sun rays are wrong. Right?

What physicists believe is that back radiation prevents a hotter body from losing as much heat as it would without back radiation.

I get it, but how does back radiation make the air hotter? It's the only way man could cause global warming agree?

You're finally starting to ask the right questions.

Ian, that's been my question since day one, I've never stopped asking prove CO2 makes the air hotter. To date, crickets.

The reason for the back radiation issue I have is that none of the claims show it makes the air hotter. Nothing put on this forum to date.

But hey, thanks,

I have explained this at least a dozen times...

Baby steps. The surface radiates 400W on average. Roughly 8% of that is at 15 microns where CO2 intercepts it. What would happen if that 8% simply escaped to space at the speed of light? The surface would cool because the temperature is a function of input minus output. Think about that for a while.

Next, some people claim that because CO2 emits as well as absorbs, therefore it makes no difference. Think about how a toaster works. The initial energy goes into filling the heatsink. The bread only toasts once the whole thing is up to temperature, even though the input is constant. Once the input stops there is still energy being released, from the heatsink.

Get back to me with questions on these first basic steps.

Bread absorbs and retains energy....CO2 does not.

 

[IanC]

I get it, but how does back radiation make the air hotter? It's the only way man could cause global warming agree?

It's not quite accurate to say that back radiation makes the air hotter. Back radiation keeps the earth surface from loosing as much heat as it would otherwise. Since the atmosphere is thermally coupled to the earth, the air will not be as cold as it otherwise would be either.

but the sun can only make it so warm, how does it get warmer than the sun and make something man's fault? Please explain how CO2 makes the air hotter.

Earth's surface never gets close to being as hot as the Sun. The toaster never gets as hot as the heating coils.

About 165W of solar gets to the surface (on average). Plug 165 into the S-B equation and you will find it is very cold. The extra energy needed to supply the surface at 400W comes from the heatsink of the atmosphere.

 

[Wuwei]

First, the SB equation is inappropriately applied to the whole business of atmospheric physics.
Etc.

Please repost that and do the quotations in the correct format. I would like to address your points, but it's too hard to do when you don't use the quotation boxes correctly.
To make it easier to find your errors, click the "More Options" button below and then click "Preview".

 

[Crick]

And yet, no tropospheric hot spot has materialized which is the most fundamental prediction of the AGW hypothesis....how many fundamental predictive failures must a hypothesis suffer, in your mind, before it is scrapped?

Show us an IPCC statement that a tropospheric hotspot is a critical indicator of greenhouse warming?

 

[jc456]

I get it, but how does back radiation make the air hotter? It's the only way man could cause global warming agree?

It's not quite accurate to say that back radiation makes the air hotter. Back radiation keeps the earth surface from loosing as much heat as it would otherwise. Since the atmosphere is thermally coupled to the earth, the air will not be as cold as it otherwise would be either.

but the sun can only make it so warm, how does it get warmer than the sun and make something man's fault? Please explain how CO2 makes the air hotter.

Earth's surface never gets close to being as hot as the Sun. The toaster never gets as hot as the heating coils.

About 165W of solar gets to the surface (on average). Plug 165 into the S-B equation and you will find it is very cold. The extra energy needed to supply the surface at 400W comes from the heatsink of the atmosphere.

ok, poorly written on my part, I corrected it. yeah i'm not that stupid that i think the earth is as warm as the sun. come on man. I think you knew what I meant. And as I stated the earth doesn't get warmer than the received rays from the sun. Unless someone is going to say it is. Again, I get it, CO2 absorbs. It absorbs the IR from the surface however hot that is. The CO2 does not get hotter than what it takes in. I will ask though why it gets colder on a clear night if CO2 holds the heat? That's the one that no one seems to be able to explain. yeah and I know the sun's rays are gone then, I'm again not that stupid. But on a cloudy night it will be warmer. hmmmmmm and that's water vapor.

Hey, BTW, does it only get the hottest part of the day rays, or does some get morning rays and get some evening rays, how does that work exactly?

Does the earth stop emitting IR after the sun goes down?

 

[jc456]

And yet, no tropospheric hot spot has materialized which is the most fundamental prediction of the AGW hypothesis....how many fundamental predictive failures must a hypothesis suffer, in your mind, before it is scrapped?

Show us an IPCC statement that a tropospheric hotspot is a critical indicator of greenhouse warming?

What Do YOU Believe is Actually Happening?

show us an excerpt of the IPCC report that is empirical evidence. Oh, that's right, you can't.

 

[Crick]

Paraphrased from Skeptical Science

The presence or absence of a tropospheric hotspot has no bearing as to what we attribute forcing. If the sun's output were to increase, we would expect both the surface and the entire atmosphere to increase in temperature. If CO2 levels were to increase, we would see warming of the surface and the lower atmosphere and significant cooling of the lower stratosphere. The tropospheric hotspot would be created in either scenario and, in fact, would be the result of any increase in forcing, natural or otherwise. It is NOT the tropospheric hotspot that is the critical indicator of greenhouse warming, it is the cooling of the lower stratosphere. All atmospheric observations show such cooling.

However, as I just said, warming of any sort should produce a hotspot and many measures have not seen it. However, several recent studies have found the hotspot and examinations of older records have revealed it there as well.

Climate meme debunked as the 'tropospheric hot spot' is found

 

[IanC]

I get it, but how does back radiation make the air hotter? It's the only way man could cause global warming agree?

It's not quite accurate to say that back radiation makes the air hotter. Back radiation keeps the earth surface from loosing as much heat as it would otherwise. Since the atmosphere is thermally coupled to the earth, the air will not be as cold as it otherwise would be either.

but the sun can only make it so warm, how does it get warmer than the sun and make something man's fault? Please explain how CO2 makes the air hotter.

Earth's surface never gets close to being as hot as the Sun. The toaster never gets as hot as the heating coils.

About 165W of solar gets to the surface (on average). Plug 165 into the S-B equation and you will find it is very cold. The extra energy needed to supply the surface at 400W comes from the heatsink of the atmosphere.

ok, poorly written on my part, I corrected it. yeah i'm not that stupid that i think the earth is as warm as the sun. come on man. I think you knew what I meant. And as I stated the earth doesn't get warmer than the received rays from the sun. Unless someone is going to say it is. Again, I get it, CO2 absorbs. It absorbs the IR from the surface however hot that is. The CO2 does not get hotter than what it takes in. I will ask though why it gets colder on a clear night if CO2 holds the heat? That's the one that no one seems to be able to explain. yeah and I know the sun's rays are gone then, I'm again not that stupid. But on a cloudy night it will be warmer. hmmmmmm and that's water vapor.

Hey, BTW, does it only get the hottest part of the day rays, or does some get morning rays and get some evening rays, how does that work exactly?

Does the earth stop emitting IR after the sun goes down?

You are going far a field already.

Do you understand the first few basic points? The surface radiates 400W but the Sun only provides 165W. How is this possible? If you cannot understand this first basic point it is useless to go any further.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Water and soil samples do not lie

Neither do they support the chemtrails fantasy.

there are over 100 patents for chemical/aerosol spraying

So what?

If you believe that the powers that be will ever allow the sheeple to be independent of their product, let me know because I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I will sell you cheap.

I firmly believe that the fossil fuel industry is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to convince people to do nothing about anthropogenic global warming. That doesn't mean diddly squat re chemtrails.

Who is getting these hundreds of millions of dollars?

I sure wish it was me!

 

[IanC]

Paraphrased from Skeptical Science

The presence or absence of a tropospheric hotspot has no bearing as to what we attribute forcing. If the sun's output were to increase, we would expect both the surface and the entire atmosphere to increase in temperature. If CO2 levels were to increase, we would see warming of the surface and the lower atmosphere and significant cooling of the lower stratosphere. The tropospheric hotspot would be created in either scenario and, in fact, would be the result of any increase in forcing, natural or otherwise. It is NOT the tropospheric hotspot that is the critical indicator of greenhouse warming, it is the cooling of the lower stratosphere. All atmospheric observations show such cooling.

However, as I just said, warming of any sort should produce a hotspot and many measures have not seen it. However, several recent studies have found the hotspot and examinations of older records have revealed it there as well.

Climate meme debunked as the 'tropospheric hot spot' is found

I am not sure if I have discussed the hot spot before. According to the climate models either increased solar or increased CO2 should cause a tropospheric hotspot. The models treat back radiation from CO2 as equivalent to extra solar. This is a major mistake because diffuse low energy back radiation is incapable of doing work. Collimated high energy solar energy IS capable of doing work.

 

[Dale Smith]

If I truly believed that ordinary human activity was responsible for any kind of climate change? I would be one of the ones helping to lead the charge....but alas, that is not the case and not even remotely close to being true. All of this was planned back in the 60's. I recall watching Sunday morning TV hoping to catch a cartoon but instead being treated to shows geared towards young people about population control, noise pollution and the dangers of smog. It's called "conditioning" and pre-programming. As I have stated earlier, the technology to totally get us off of a petroleum based economy has been around since the 1930's and the deep underground military bases/bunkers do not have electrical grids.....they use Tesla technology because he came up with the idea of harnessing the energy that surrounds us. What the global elites want to do is to further decimate the middle class and the working poor by putting another yoke upon them in the form of a carbon tax that will be collected by the same banking oligarchs that control the oil companies and the fiat currency backed by nothing tangible.....and that is an undeniable fact.

 

[Wuwei]

and the deep underground military bases/bunkers do not have electrical grids.....they use Tesla technology because he came up with the idea of harnessing the energy that surrounds us.

What is Tesla technology? What would that energy be?