|
Post by icefisher on Mar 18, 2019 3:08:46 GMT
Using what parameters? Temperature is the most popular way to describe weather. I don't know what today's average temperature was. YOU are the one who supposedly knows what it is! YOU are the one who was "explaining" to me how I should interpret others' usage of the term "Climate"! I'm fine if you don't know how to define "Climate" and don't know what you mean by Climate = average global weather. I didn't think you did anyway. I know what climate is, its a number of sensible and measurable environmental conditions over a long period of time as I already explained but it apparently flew over your head. If you want to know what todays average global weather is you would probably have to look at a large number of data bases and compute what all those sensible parameters are. I am not going to do it for you.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 18, 2019 10:30:57 GMT
I know what climate is, its a number of sensible and measurable environmental conditions over a long period of time as I already explained but it apparently flew over your head. Translation: You haven't the vaguest idea beyond regurgitating religious dogma. I get it. So we have established that there is no such thing as Global Climate. Where does that leave us? Oh yes, there is therefore no such thing as "Climate Change" or "Climate Variability" or "Climate Sensitivity" ... outside of the Global Warming religion of course. If you want to know what todays average global weather is you would probably have to look at a large number of data bases and compute what all those sensible parameters are. I asked YOU for that answer. I know that you won't be providing that information because there is no such thing as average global weather; at its base it's a logical contradiction and the concept makes no sense. You, on the other hand, are obligated per your religion to make some lame excuse as to why you can't say what the global weather was for [insert the day of your choice] or over [insert time interval of your choice]. Oh, the things religious fanatics say and do in the name of their religion. I am not going to do it for you. This is the CLASSIC epic fail from someone who can't justify his position, i.e. "I shouldn't have to explain this to you, so I won't." Do you know why this doesn't work on exam questions? Your king is tipped again.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Mar 18, 2019 15:17:05 GMT
If there was no 'greenhouse effect' in our atmosphere the temperature on this planet would not be warm enough to sustain life as we know it CO2 is not required - sensible heat from the surface warms the air and the wet and dry lapse rates do the rest. Nautonnier, CO2 increases the earth's sensible heat. The lapse rates distribute the heat. Do you disagree with any of these statements? 1)The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be without its atmosphere. If a planet's atmosphere contains radiatively active gases (i.e., greenhouse gases) the atmosphere will radiate energy in all directions. Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, warming it. (Wikipedia) 2)CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 3)No one knows how much CO2 warms the earth and its atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 18, 2019 15:35:05 GMT
Nautonnier, CO2 increases the earth's sensible heat. No, it does not, and it cannot without violating physics. The insistence that CO2 nevertheless increases earth's sensible heat is Global Warming religious dogma that violates the laws of physics just as one would expect from a "miracle" in a religious context. Do you disagree with any of these statements? Oh yeah, you can count on it. 1)The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be without its atmosphere. This is a direct violation of the 2nd LoT. Only someone ignorant of thermodynamics would even entertain the idea. If a planet's atmosphere contains radiatively active gases (i.e., greenhouse gases) the atmosphere will radiate energy in all directions. Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, warming it. (Wikipedia) 1st - there is no Greenhouse Effect ergo there is no such thing as "greenhouse gas." 2nd - All matter radiates in all directions always. Why state this as though it's something special about an atmosphere? 3rd - The earth is a blackbody with an atmosphere, a hydrosphere and a solid surface. Science already explains exactly what happens and I don't see any reference to Stefan-Boltzmann in your statement. 4th - just as above, you are expressing an egregious violation of the 2nd LoT. 2)CO2 is a greenhouse gas There is no such thing in science. "Greenhouse gas" only exists within Global Warming religious dogma. 3)No one knows how much CO2 warms the atmosphere I do. Zero. CO2 cannot increase the earth's average global temperature. Take another look at Stefan-Boltzmann.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 18, 2019 16:38:45 GMT
Keep dreaming ibedamann. Ratiative physics is not only well established, it is measurable.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 18, 2019 16:55:15 GMT
I know what climate is, its a number of sensible and measurable environmental conditions over a long period of time as I already explained but it apparently flew over your head. Translation: You haven't the vaguest idea beyond regurgitating religious dogma. I get it. So we have established that there is no such thing as Global Climate. Where does that leave us? Oh yes, there is therefore no such thing as "Climate Change" or "Climate Variability" or "Climate Sensitivity" ... outside of the Global Warming religion of course. so you are big fan of semantical nitpicking. BFD! A single global climate? When did you invent that idea? Climate can change globally but I am not aware of anybody suggesting their is a set "global climate". There are only global climate statistics that are arrived at mathematically. You are just so confused over the semantics you don't know what you are talking about. To educate you a bit global climate change is a change in global climate statistics that are produced by looking at a lot of weather metrics around the world. Climate has always changed and there are legitimate arguments that most of the change is natural. In my view its even possible that natural change could be larger than total change meaning that any anthropogenic effect operated to moderate natural change. Thats no by favorite theory but I can recognize that we know so little about what controls the climate it remains in the realm of possibility. If you want to know what todays average global weather is you would probably have to look at a large number of data bases and compute what all those sensible parameters are. I asked YOU for that answer. I know that you won't be providing that information because there is no such thing as average global weather; at its base it's a logical contradiction and the concept makes no sense. You, on the other hand, are obligated per your religion to make some lame excuse as to why you can't say what the global weather was for [insert the day of your choice] or over [insert time interval of your choice]. Oh, the things religious fanatics say and do in the name of their religion. [/quote] You must really enjoy pounding your pud while playing childish semantic games. Whats the matter don't you have any other form of entertainment? Obviously there isn't a single global weather. Again weather is measured by numerous sensible and measurable natural physical phenomena, all of which can be compiled to produce a statistical average. You can't possible be so dumb as to not know that and still be able to spell so that makes you nothing but a troll. So you are going into the blocker and hopefully everybody else follows suit so we don't see anymore trace of you.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 18, 2019 17:49:26 GMT
so you are big fan of semantical nitpicking. Nope. You were just egregiously in error. Now you are trying to imply that it was somehow my fault. A single global climate? When did you invent that idea? Climate can change globally but I am not aware of anybody suggesting their is a set "global climate". How far did you get in school? Did you ever learn about singular vs. plural? When one writes "the climate" with the definite article "the" and a singular "climate" in a context of the earth/globe, yes, that is exactly what that means. Shall we just chalk it up to not writing what you mean and you not meaning what you write? There are only global climate statistics that are arrived at mathematically. No there aren't. Those don't exist outside your religious dogma. To educate you a bit global climate change is a change in global climate statistics that are produced by looking at a lot of weather metrics around the world. ... and you SPECIFIED that those values were AVERAGED to arrive at the "climate change." So you have global weather that is averaged and we have already been over what this means and how you can't give an example because it's an absurd concept. Show me I'm wrong. What was the average global weather for [insert date of your choice] and the average global weather for [insert time interval of your choice]? ... *OR* if you'd like, what was the climate for [insert date of your choice] and what was the climate for [insert time interval of your choice]? Warning: *LAME* excuses imminent in T-3, ...T-2, ...T-1, ...NOW! Climate has always changed ... ... or it has never existed. I notice you specifically wrote "Climate has always changed" and not "Climates have always changed." What you refer to as "semantic nitpicking" by others is just you getting called out for your semantic dishonesty, and you are just lashing out because that's not supposed to happen. In my view its even possible that natural change could be larger than total change meaning that any anthropogenic effect operated to moderate natural change. ... but what you never imagine being possible is proving that your deity actually exists ... because no one is supposed to question your religion. Obviously there isn't a single global weather. I know, that's why I called you on it. Again weather is measured by numerous sensible and measurable natural physical phenomena, all of which can be compiled to produce a statistical average. So you're back to that again. Great, so I'm back to asking you for the average global weather for [insert date of your choice] and the average global weather for [insert time interval of your choice] You can't possible be so dumb as to not know that and still be able to spell so that makes you nothing but a troll. Aaaahhh, you're back to the "Bluff of the Moron." It's time for you to put up or shut up. Give us that global weather, all averaged and what-not. So you are going into the blocker and hopefully everybody else follows suit so we don't see anymore trace of you. And so it ends. The last recourse of the intellectual coward; he flees for the refuge of his safe space. Good luck with that. It doesn't make you any less of a moron and I'm still going to be calling you on your stupid 3rd-grade mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 18, 2019 17:52:58 GMT
Keep dreaming ibedamann. Ratiative physics is not only well established, it is measurable. Hilarious! Why don't you therefore use it to support your statements? Were you taught that the mere inclusion of the word "radiative" makes any statement true?
There's no question that "radiative gases" play a huge role in the Global Warming mythology. They just don't exist in science.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 18, 2019 18:01:38 GMT
CO2 is not required - sensible heat from the surface warms the air and the wet and dry lapse rates do the rest. Nautonnier, CO2 increases the earth's sensible heat. The lapse rates distribute the heat. Do you disagree with any of these statements? 1)The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be without its atmosphere. If a planet's atmosphere contains radiatively active gases (i.e., greenhouse gases) the atmosphere will radiate energy in all directions. Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, warming it. (Wikipedia) 2)CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 3)No one knows how much CO2 warms the earth and its atmosphere. 1. Fancy having Wiki quoted as a reference. The hypothesized 'green house effect' (misnamed because a greenhouse gets warmer by prevention of convection not through 'trapping of infrared') is claimed to work in the way stated; but it neglects all the other feedbacks that are occurring. Infrared will not warm water surfaces nor transpiring vegetation (that one of the reasons _why_ plants transpire is to keep cool - just like we perspire) the air over fields of green crops is cooler than over bare earth. So infrared from whatever source will not warm ~85% of the surface it almost certainly leads to slight cooling as it increases evaporative heat loss. In the same way warm air over an ocean will increase evaporation and cool it - it's why you blow on coffee. A planet without an atmosphere or water will have a surface temperature in the sun many degrees higher than that with an atmosphere and out of the sun many degrees lower. Desert temperatures do very much the same on Earth very high in sunlight and frosts at night; it is the effect of water vapor and its latent heat that keeps the air warm in non-desert areas at night. 2. CO2 is a radiative gas - kinetic energy of other molecules that collide with CO2 can cause the molecule to vibrate and then lose the energy as an IR photon. This is how CO2 is responsible for considerable heat loss from the mesosphere and thermosphere - which at the moment are a lot cooler than normal. In the troposphere any CO2 effects are completely masked by convection and water vapor and latent heat, to the extent they are not measurable. 3. I agree with #3 - and some feel CO2 has no measurable effect (which is what geological records show there is no direct correlation at all between levels of CO2 and atmospheric temperatures, there are indications that the level of CO2 follows temperature at all timescales possibly due to Henry's Law). Yet some people feel it is the 'climate control knob' and above 350ppm was going to result in runaway warming, now that is shifted to maybe 2C by 2100 if we use more fossil fuels than we know exist. So I will stick with 'unproven'.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Mar 18, 2019 18:50:46 GMT
So the process where an atom is excited by the absorption of a photon and then a later re radiation of a photon, be it a gas or otherwise is rubbish? really!
Deep space has a gas background which has a temperature signal relating to its actual temperature. These could be called greenhouse gases but that is using a silly name for this. I agree that greenhouse gas is an erroneous concept but the process of absorption and re radiation is real.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Mar 18, 2019 18:58:29 GMT
Nautonnier, CO2 increases the earth's sensible heat. The lapse rates distribute the heat. Do you disagree with any of these statements? 1)The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be without its atmosphere. If a planet's atmosphere contains radiatively active gases (i.e., greenhouse gases) the atmosphere will radiate energy in all directions. Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, warming it. (Wikipedia) 2)CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 3)No one knows how much CO2 warms the earth and its atmosphere. 1. Fancy having Wiki quoted as a reference. The hypothesized 'green house effect' (misnamed because a greenhouse gets warmer by prevention of convection not through 'trapping of infrared') is claimed to work in the way stated; but it neglects all the other feedbacks that are occurring. Infrared will not warm water surfaces nor transpiring vegetation (that one of the reasons _why_ plants transpire is to keep cool - just like we perspire) the air over fields of green crops is cooler than over bare earth. So infrared from whatever source will not warm ~85% of the surface it almost certainly leads to slight cooling as it increases evaporative heat loss. In the same way warm air over an ocean will increase evaporation and cool it - it's why you blow on coffee. A planet without an atmosphere or water will have a surface temperature in the sun many degrees higher than that with an atmosphere and out of the sun many degrees lower. Desert temperatures do very much the same on Earth very high in sunlight and frosts at night; it is the effect of water vapor and its latent heat that keeps the air warm in non-desert areas at night. 2. CO2 is a radiative gas - kinetic energy of other molecules that collide with CO2 can cause the molecule to vibrate and then lose the energy as an IR photon. This is how CO2 is responsible for considerable heat loss from the mesosphere and thermosphere - which at the moment are a lot cooler than normal. In the troposphere any CO2 effects are completely masked by convection and water vapor and latent heat, to the extent they are not measurable. 3. I agree with #3 - and some feel CO2 has no measurable effect (which is what geological records show there is no direct correlation at all between levels of CO2 and atmospheric temperatures, there are indications that the level of CO2 follows temperature at all timescales possibly due to Henry's Law). Yet some people feel it is the 'climate control knob' and above 350ppm was going to result in runaway warming, now that is shifted to maybe 2C by 2100 if we use more fossil fuels than we know exist. So I will stick with 'unproven'. Nautonnier, I'm going to take that a "yes" for all 3 statements because I'm sure you agree (but didn't say) that CO2 absorbs radiation (of selected wavelengths) as well as releasing energy as radiation or sensible heat. When you run your IR water cooling test, hopefully, you will have a second bowl of water which is not being bombarded with IR so you can measure the temperature difference of the 2 bowls with all things equal except the IR bombardment.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 18, 2019 19:48:19 GMT
So the process where an atom is excited by the absorption of a photon and then a later re radiation of a photon, be it a gas or otherwise is rubbish? really! Deep space has a gas background which has a temperature signal relating to its actual temperature. These could be called greenhouse gases but that is using a silly name for this. I agree that greenhouse gas is an erroneous concept but the process of absorption and re radiation is real. Not at all but in the troposphere it is repeatedly stated by the warmer atmosphere group that an 'excited' CO2 molecule will collide with another gas molecule normally N2 and pass on the vibrational energy as kinetic energy raising the temperature of the volume of gas. Of course the downwelling group feel that the CO2 molecule radiates the vibrational energy in all directions and 3.7W/M-1 'downwelling' radiation heats the surface. That means that at least 3.7W/M-1 is radiated away from the surface too. Taken together with the heating of the N2/O2 that's a lot of energy for just 400ppm CO2.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 18, 2019 19:50:10 GMT
1. Fancy having Wiki quoted as a reference. The hypothesized 'green house effect' (misnamed because a greenhouse gets warmer by prevention of convection not through 'trapping of infrared') is claimed to work in the way stated; but it neglects all the other feedbacks that are occurring. Infrared will not warm water surfaces nor transpiring vegetation (that one of the reasons _why_ plants transpire is to keep cool - just like we perspire) the air over fields of green crops is cooler than over bare earth. So infrared from whatever source will not warm ~85% of the surface it almost certainly leads to slight cooling as it increases evaporative heat loss. In the same way warm air over an ocean will increase evaporation and cool it - it's why you blow on coffee. A planet without an atmosphere or water will have a surface temperature in the sun many degrees higher than that with an atmosphere and out of the sun many degrees lower. Desert temperatures do very much the same on Earth very high in sunlight and frosts at night; it is the effect of water vapor and its latent heat that keeps the air warm in non-desert areas at night. 2. CO2 is a radiative gas - kinetic energy of other molecules that collide with CO2 can cause the molecule to vibrate and then lose the energy as an IR photon. This is how CO2 is responsible for considerable heat loss from the mesosphere and thermosphere - which at the moment are a lot cooler than normal. In the troposphere any CO2 effects are completely masked by convection and water vapor and latent heat, to the extent they are not measurable. 3. I agree with #3 - and some feel CO2 has no measurable effect (which is what geological records show there is no direct correlation at all between levels of CO2 and atmospheric temperatures, there are indications that the level of CO2 follows temperature at all timescales possibly due to Henry's Law). Yet some people feel it is the 'climate control knob' and above 350ppm was going to result in runaway warming, now that is shifted to maybe 2C by 2100 if we use more fossil fuels than we know exist. So I will stick with 'unproven'. Nautonnier, I'm going to take that a "yes" for all 3 statements because I'm sure you agree (but didn't say) that CO2 absorbs radiation (of selected wavelengths) as well as releasing energy as radiation or sensible heat. When you run your IR water cooling test, hopefully, you will have a second bowl of water which is not being bombarded with IR so you can measure the temperature difference of the 2 bowls with all things equal except the IR bombardment. But of course Also some with blown warm air over the surface - as you know that is the way to keep coffee warm.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 18, 2019 20:20:32 GMT
So the process where an atom is excited by the absorption of a photon and then a later re radiation of a photon, be it a gas or otherwise is rubbish? really! Deep space has a gas background which has a temperature signal relating to its actual temperature. These could be called greenhouse gases but that is using a silly name for this. I agree that greenhouse gas is an erroneous concept but the process of absorption and re radiation is real. I think its mostly rubbish. You take a theory of greenhouse gases as expressed by climate science and it is essentially rubbish. Here is why I think so. In the field of litigation support modeling what the runaway greenhouse warming crowd is doing is what is called as "gaming the system". One does so by minimizing the effect of all variables contrary to the litigants claim and maximizing all the variable supportive of the litigants claim. The CAGW religion does so by setting to zero all the variables Naut talks about by making them puppets of the variable they want to promote. The likelihood of this being correct in a complex system like our atmosphere is a probability pushing very hard on zero.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 18, 2019 21:40:51 GMT
Deep space has a gas background Deep space does not have a background beyond deeper space. which has a temperature signal relating to its actual temperature. Only matter has temperature. "Deep space" is a vacuum and has no temperature. I agree that greenhouse gas is an erroneous concept but the process of absorption and re radiation is real. Using the term "reradiation" is erroneous because nothing is "reradiated", they are different photons.
|
|