Arctic Ice

[thermostat]

Just a reality check, high pressure has in fact built up over the Western Arctic. In combination, observed sea ice area and extent values have dropped.

[icefisher]

Jul 14, 2013 3:32:13 GMT Andrew said:

Magellan,

My interest was in the observation that *no* knowledgeable person is going to dispute the idea of the life giving qualities that water vapour provides because of the way it interacts with infra red to enable a warmer planet, where a colder atmosphere is part of a system that enables a warmer surface. Expanding that basic idea to include complex theories is not what was interesting me.

I was imagining that anybody would be able to follow what i was saying and realise for themselves that the GHE is real and it enormously benefits life on Earth.

During the conversation i had with Icefisher, Icefisher spent a great deal of time telling me that Magellan had proven I was wrong. I did my best to interact with you, but you were not interested in listening, and kept telling me how i was changing the goal posts.

No goal posts were changed and all the observations and experiments I made were all linked to the simple beginning observation that a cold atmosphere is capable of causing a hotter surface to be warmer, providing space is colder than the 'cold' atmosphere.

The whole thing was so simple and yet months of my life were wasted while i imagined eventually somebody was going to learn something they would find interesting and useful to them.

Don't take it so hard that somebody does not agree with you. You already admitted that the statement you were challenging was not the statement that Magellan made. You might actually not believe the shell model you constructed, you might actually not believe in backradiation and believe only in gradients slipping into blankets of the atmosphere. If so then my job to take you the final mile is a lot less challenging.

I am confident that a passive solar heating model, a global system wide version of a residential system will win out in the end operating off gravity, the diurnal cycle, the poor emissivity of the atmosphere, and radiation, convection, and conduction.

We built those embedded shells for the backradiation model and made them balance.

But in doing so we created rigid numeric standards for each layer that set definite percentage differences between radiation exchanges forcing it to operate within tight constraints to stay in balance(e.g. radiation levels stepped rigidly forcing stepped temperature change and demanded exorbitant warming with each layer.)

My model is much simpler, less demanding and more naturally smoothed.

My model though depends on a small greenhouse effect because one cannot observe the atmosphere being a lot warmer than the surface. But thats not a big problem because a small greenhouse effect is supported by Stefan Boltzmann equations and the ambient radiation from the sun. I estimate it depending upon other potential error to be between about 5 and 10 degrees C.

Climate science had to suspend clouds with imaginary threads to get it up to 33 degrees. But all they are saying there like they say about a lot of things is that there is only one way to skin a cat. But its not a difference that has to be manufactured out of thin air with backradiation.


The more complex and demanding backradiation model that we modeled supports any greenhouse level but 33 degrees makes little sense empirically. the surface seldom approaches within 70C of its theoretical limit while the moon has no trouble and Mars with a 24 hour diurnal cycle doesn't either.

So I am going with the simple undemanding model that depends upon proven technology and violates no laws of thermodynamics, going with a small greenhouse effect, and believe most of the change we have seen is due to the sun.

I have no quibble with the men slowing the cooling of the woman, blankets warming the "surface" of bodies, and other irrelevant stuff you have thrown out. I just quibble with their applicability to the question at hand about whether cold objects can warm warm objects as you claim happens.

Obviously a warm object warming its own surface and a cold blanket at the same time does not qualify as an example of a cold object warming a warm object.

[icefisher]

Jul 14, 2013 5:48:59 GMT Andrew said:

You guys are rambling again

Even the wiki climate terrorists recognise that the green house effect has nothing to do with a greenhouse

And the temperature gradient of a dead body or egg is irrelevant to the GHE. The relevant fact is the core of an egg is heating the surface and the sun heats the surface of the earth, therefore if you slow down the cooling of either surface it becomes warmer.

The way you guys talk anybody would think this was hard.

The surface of any heated object that has reached equilibrium will become warmer if you slow down the rate of cooling. There is no ifs buts and maybes about this.

but iceskater have you forgotten that an object radiates at a rate in accordance with its temperature? thats a law of radiation. it doesn't slow down. If you want to build an insulation model you need a blanket with some uumph. All I pointed out before you jumped in here was CO2 was a trace gas so it had no bulk. with the passive solar model you can create "climate" warmth if not surface warmth using non-greenhouse gases. It can easily be demonstrated with a scaled down model.

Further evidence of the lack of oomph is the absent of the hotspot, it simply is not there. Climate warming has been from a different source.

Greenhouse gases might override such a model but that might mean cooling by increasing the atmosphere emissivity. . . .something that can also be demonstrated with a scale model.

Now its also true that greenhouse gases would make for a greenhouse effect even if they tended to cool a non-greenhouse gas atmosphere. It would simply be the case of the low emissivity of the greenhouse gas atmosphere over the surface provides a means for sequestering heat but a lesser means of sequestering heat than a non-greenhouse gas would provide.

Other than that the main difference between a non-greenhouse gas climatization model versus a greenhouse gas one is the greenhouse gas one would warm both the climate and the surface and the non-greenhouse gas model would serve to mostly just warm the climate.

Indeed we have greenhouse gases in our model as well as non-greenhouse gases. So at a minimum the greenhouse gases contribute to close the gap between the climate and the surface by cooling the atmosphere and warming the surface.

If we had a pure non-greenhouse gas atmosphere the atmosphere and probably the climate would be blistering hot because of extraordinarily low emissivity. Only very near the surface in the conductivity range the atmosphere would switch between blistering hot and freezing cold every day. So greenhouse gases are responsible for making the planet liveable.

As I see it more CO2 would probably not affect the climate, it would probably further close the already small gap between the surface and the climate though. It would affect the climate little because already the atmosphere is about the same emissivity as CO2.

It is low emissivity that allows the atmosphere to be warmer than the surface as it operates in the passive solar model. Low emissivity is the equivalent of insulation in accordance with Stefan Boltzmann equations as it slows warming and cooling like insulation does. The passive solar model depends upon convection to sequester the heat and on the diurnal cycle to provide a supply of above average heat to fill the atmosphere with heat. Cooling is greatly suppressed because of low conductivity and the fact that convection does not run when the heat source is cool.

[Andrew]

Jul 14, 2013 7:05:00 GMT icefisher said:

Obviously a warm object warming its own surface and a cold blanket at the same time does not qualify as an example of a cold object warming a warm object.

Icefisher

Strawman

[Andrew]

Jul 14, 2013 7:27:09 GMT icefisher said:

Jul 14, 2013 5:48:59 GMT Andrew said:

You guys are rambling again

Even the wiki climate terrorists recognise that the green house effect has nothing to do with a greenhouse

And the temperature gradient of a dead body or egg is irrelevant to the GHE. The relevant fact is the core of an egg is heating the surface and the sun heats the surface of the earth, therefore if you slow down the cooling of either surface it becomes warmer.

The way you guys talk anybody would think this was hard.

The surface of any heated object that has reached equilibrium will become warmer if you slow down the rate of cooling. There is no ifs buts and maybes about this.

but iceskater have you forgotten that an object radiates at a rate in accordance with its temperature? thats a law of radiation. it doesn't slow down.

Strawman

[icefisher]

Jul 14, 2013 10:03:30 GMT Andrew said:

Jul 14, 2013 7:05:00 GMT icefisher said:

Obviously a warm object warming its own surface and a cold blanket at the same time does not qualify as an example of a cold object warming a warm object.

Icefisher

Strawman

Hmmm, changing the goal posts once again?

[magellan]

Jul 14, 2013 5:48:59 GMT Andrew said:

You guys are rambling again

Even the wiki climate terrorists recognise that the green house effect has nothing to do with a greenhouse

And the temperature gradient of a dead body or egg is irrelevant to the GHE. The relevant fact is the core of an egg is heating the surface and the sun heats the surface of the earth, therefore if you slow down the cooling of either surface it becomes warmer.

The way you guys talk anybody would think this was hard.

The surface of any heated object that has reached equilibrium will become warmer if you slow down the rate of cooling. There is no ifs buts and maybes about this.

I'm not going to re-open that ludicrous discussion, but the truth is you kept on changing the goal posts, again and again. My error was getting so emotionally involved I allowed you to change your original argument and control the debate.

In fact it was steve that humorously came up with the idea that a dead body could be its own source of energy if the bacteria began decomposing the body, thereby creating a heat source. He knew what the argument was about.

It all went downhill from there.

You appear to be quite conceited and cannot bear the thought of admitting being wrong. Numerouno and you argue about the dumbest things endlessly. I stopped posting in the other thread because you never once could admit being wrong or even opinionated no matter how much common sense, data and sources were given. Your standard response is always the same: obfuscate, deflect, redirect and always remind us what a privilege it is for us be educated by you.

[magellan]

Jul 14, 2013 5:48:59 GMT Andrew said:

You guys are rambling again

Even the wiki climate terrorists recognise that the green house effect has nothing to do with a greenhouse

And the temperature gradient of a dead body or egg is irrelevant to the GHE. The relevant fact is the core of an egg is heating the surface and the sun heats the surface of the earth, therefore if you slow down the cooling of either surface it becomes warmer.

The way you guys talk anybody would think this was hard.

The surface of any heated object that has reached equilibrium will become warmer if you slow down the rate of cooling. There is no ifs buts and maybes about this.

Even the wiki climate terrorists recognise that the green house effect has nothing to do with a greenhouse

In case you missed it, here's the list; nope, Wikipedia isn't there, but multiple government (including NASA) and "high level" educational institutions have been promoting the falsehood for decades.

www.whrc.org/resources/primer_greenhouse.html



Is that the correct description of the "greenhouse effect"?

"Trapping heat" from both government, NGO, science and education outlets.

earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/rotary/global_warming/03.shtml

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas – it traps heat radiation that is attempting to escape from Earth.

archive.greenpeace.org/climate/science/reports/climatefaq.html

Similarly, the earth is surrounded by a blanket of gases. This blanket traps energy in the atmosphere, much the same way as glass traps heat inside a greenhouse. This results in an accumulation of energy, and the overall warming of the atmosphere. The 'greenhouse effect' is the popular expression for the above process.

www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/eek/earth/air/global.htm

Think of the earth as being inside a giant greenhouse. The gases act like a greenhouse's glass walls -- they keep heat from escaping into space, and the earth stays warm.

Try this easy experiment: Take two jars and put a teaspoon of water in each jar. Put a lid on just one jar. Place both jars in a sunny spot. After a few hours, check on the jars. You'll see that the open jar hasn't changed, but the closed jar will be steamy and hot inside. What happened? The heat from the sun could not escape from the closed jar.

www.theweatherchannelkids.com/climate-code/climate-close-up/greenhouse-gases/

What is the Greenhouse Effect? The greenhouse effect is a process that helps keep the Earth warm enough for people, plants and animals to live on. Think of the Earth like a giant greenhouse. Imagine the Earth’s atmosphere like the glass of a greenhouse. Both the gases of our atmosphere and the glass of a greenhouse trap the sun’s heat energy inside keeping the temperature balanced; not too hot or too cold. This is why some of the gases in our atmosphere are called “greenhouse gases”.

And a long list I've collected over time from previous posts on this subject. Now you're going to say with a straight face the Woods experiment is a waste of time? You are a dope. Read the following then come back and tell me there isn't a relationship between the "greenhouse effect" and a real glass greenhouse. It is not just an analogy; it is based on how Tyndall and Arrhenius et al described it.

Prove me wrong.

Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences
In a greenhouse, visible light (e.g., from the Sun) easily penetrates glass or plastic walls, but heat (in the form of infrared radiation) does not. The greenhouse effect refers to the physical process by which atmospheric gases allow sunlight to pass through but absorb infrared radiation thus acting like a blanket trapping heat.
www.bigelow.org/virtual/handson/greenhouse_make.html


The U.S. government's Environmental Protection Agency
The energy that is absorbed is converted in part to heat energy that is re-radiated back into the atmosphere. Heat energy waves are not visible, and are generally in the infrared (long-wavelength) portion of the spectrum compared to visible light. Physical laws show that atmospheric constituents— notably water vapor and carbon dioxide gas—that are transparent to visible light are not transparent to heat waves. Hence, re-radiated energy in the infrared portion of the spectrum is trapped within the atmosphere, keeping the surface temperature warm. This phenomenon is called the "greenhouse effect" because it is exactly the same principle that heats a greenhouse
www.epa.gov/ne/students/pdfs/activ13.pdf

Fort Lewis College, Colorado
This partial trapping of solar radiation is known as the greenhouse effect. The name comes from the fact that a very similar process operates in a greenhouse. Sunlight passes relatively unhindered through glass panes, but much of the infrared radiation reemitted by the plants is blocked by the glass and cannot get out. Consequently, the interior of the greenhouse heats up, and flowers, fruits, and vegetables can grow even on cold wintry days.
physics.fortlewis.edu/Astronomy/astronomy%20today/CHAISSON/AT307/HTML/AT30702.HTM


Planet Connecticut.org
Glass is transparent to sunlight, but is effectively opaque to infrared radiation. Therefore, the glass warms up when it absorbs some of the infrared radiation that is radiated by the ground, water, and biomass. The glass will then re-radiate this heat as infrared radiation, some to the outside and some back into the greenhouse. The energy radiated back into the greenhouse causes the inside of the greenhouse to heat up.
www.planetconnecticut.org/teachersadministrators/pdfs/lesson1.pdf


United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Greenhouse gases make up only about 1 per cent of the atmosphere, but they act like a blanket around the earth, or like the glass roof of a greenhouse -- they trap heat and keep the planet some 30 degrees C warmer than it would be otherwise.
unfccc.int/essential_background/feeling_the_heat/items/2903.php


NASA
The "greenhouse effect" is the warming of climate that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere resemble glass in a greenhouse,
allowing sunlight to pass into the "greenhouse," but blocking Earth's heat from escaping into space.
www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/green.htm


NASA
Why is this process called "The Greenhouse Effect?"
Because the same process keeps glass-covered greenhouses warm. The Sun heats the ground and greenery inside the greenhouse, but the glass absorbs the re-radiated infra-red and returns some of it to the inside.
www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Lsun1lit.htm


NASA
A real greenhouse is made of glass, which lets visible sunlight through from the outside. This light gets absorbed by all the materials inside, and the warmed surfaces radiate infrared light, sometimes called "heat rays", back. But the glass, although transparent to visible light, acts as a partial barrier to the infrared light. So some of this infrared radiation, or heat, gets trapped inside.
www-airs.jpl.nasa.gov/News/Features/FeaturesClimateChange/GreenhouseEffect/


Dept of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science at the University of Maryland
A real greenhouse is enclosed by glass walls and ceilings. Glass is highly transparent in the visible wavelengths of the sun, so sunlight freely passes into the greenhouse. However, glass is highly absorbing in the infrared wavelengths characteristic of emission by earth's surface. Therefore, the infrared radiation emitted by the surface is efficiently absorbed by the glass walls and ceiling, and these surfaces, in turn, radiate energy back into the interior of the greenhouse, as well as outward to the environment. But clearly, a large portion of the infrared radiation from the surface does not pass outward from the greenhouse, and the equivalent energy is contained within the greenhouse environment.
www.atmos.umd.edu/~owen/CHPI/IMAGES/grnhs1.html


How Stuff Works
Light passes through the glass into the greenhouse and heats things up inside the greenhouse. The glass is then opaque to the infrared energy these heated things are emitting, so the heat is trapped inside the greenhouse.
home.howstuffworks.com/question238.htm


Enviropedia.org.uk
Greenhouse gases like water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide trap the infrared radiation released by the Earth's surface. The atmosphere acts like the glass in a greenhouse, allowing much of the shortwave solar radiation to travel through unimpeded, but trapping a lot of the longwave heat energy trying to escape back to space. This process makes the temperature rise in the atmosphere just as it does in the greenhouse. This is the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and keeps the Earth 33°C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere, at an average 15°C. In contrast, the moon, which has no atmosphere, has an average surface temperature of -18°C.
www.enviropedia.org.uk/Climate_Change/Greenhouse_Effect.php


University of Alaska-Fairbanks, Physics Department
Greenhouse gases act as a blanket. Some of you may wonder how a green house takes solar energy and turns it into thermal energy. A good example of this is something you can observe every day in the summer in you own car. It happens when you leave you car in a sunny parking lot with the windows up. The solar energy is passing through the glass and is heating the cars interior. What’s really happening is the short wave infrared waves are going in and are turning into long wave infrared waves, which cannot escape.
ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/102spring2002_Web_projects/C.Levit/web%20page.html


Climate.org
Fortunately, much of this infrared radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere by the so-called greenhouse gases, making the world much warmer than it would be without them. These gases act rather like the glass in a greenhouse, which allows sunlight to enter, provides shelter from the wind and prevents most of the infrared energy from escaping, keeping the temperature warm.
www.climate.org.ua/ghg/ghgeffect.html


State of Utah Office of Education
On a global scale, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and other gases present in the atmosphere are similar to the glass in a greenhouse. Ultraviolet radiation from the sun (having a short wavelength) can pass through the glass. Once inside the greenhouse, the ultraviolet radiation is absorbed by soils, plants, and other objects. Upon absorption, it becomes infrared radiation or heat energy having a shorter wavelength. Because of this, infrared radiation cannot escape through the windows. The windows act
like a large blanket in which they reradiate the infrared energy back into the greenhouse. This phenomenon naturally causes the overall temperature within the greenhouse to increase.
www.usoe.k12.ut.us/curr/science/core/earth/sciber9/Stand_6/html/1e.htm


G.H.P. Dharmaratna, Director General Department of Meteorology
In order to understand the greenhouse effect on earth a good place to start is in a greenhouse. A greenhouse is kept warm because energy coming in from the sun (in the form of visible sunlight) is able to pass easily through the glass of the greenhouse and heat the soil and plants inside. But energy which is emitted from the soil and plants is in the form of invisible infrared radiation; this is not able to pass as easily through the glass of the greenhouse. Some of the infrared heat energy is trapped inside; this is the main reason why a greenhouse is warmer than outside.
www.lankajalani.org/Publications/Paper%20-%20Impacts%20of%20Climate%20Change.doc


Weather-Climate.org
This warming effect is called the "greenhouse effect" because it is the same process as that which occurs in a greenhouse on a sunny day. The glass is transparent to short-wave radiation but absorbs the outgoing long-wave radiation, causing a rise in temperature inside the greenhouse.
www.weather-climate.org.uk/04.php


Eduhistory.com
The glass used for a greenhouse acts as a selective transmission medium for different spectral frequencies, and its effect is to trap energy within the greenhouse, which heats both the plants and the ground inside it. This warms the air near the ground, and this air is prevented from rising and flowing away. This can be demonstrated by opening a small window near the roof of a greenhouse: the temperature drops considerably. Greenhouses thus work by trapping electromagnetic radiation and preventing convection.
www.eduhistory.com/greenhouse.htm


Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Overview: Carbon Dioxide is identified as “greenhouse gas” because of its ability to trap heat within earth’s environment. ...Explain that the greenhouse effect works in a somewhat similar -- but not entirely the same -- way (see teacher notes and background supplement sheet for more information). The sun’s rays pass through the atmosphere and warm the surface. The earth emits some of this energy back into space (like heat from a campfire). But gases such as carbon dioxide and water vapor (in clouds) absorb much of this energy and send it back to earth. People have come to call this process the “greenhouse effect” because it reminds them of how actual greenhouses, which are made out of glass and grow plants, let the sun’s rays in while trapping much of the radiation that would otherwise
escape.
www.letus.northwestern.edu/projects/gw/pdf/C09.pdf

The "greenhouse effect" has been compared to a real glass greenhouse going back to at least 1988.
Here's a YouTube video documentary from 1987/1988 with the usual suspects including James Hansen talking about "trapping heat" in the greenhouse effect.



Here's an article from Popular Science 1988, which I read back then and thought "Wow, this is really serious". I mean, how can big shooters like NASA get it wrong?
is.gd/pZdujx

[trbixler]

Easy to overlook convection when there is money at stake. Easy to overlook gravity when money is at stake. But then many things get overlooked when money is at stake. Especially "free" government money.

[Andrew]

Jul 14, 2013 16:22:06 GMT magellan said:

Jul 14, 2013 5:48:59 GMT Andrew said:

You guys are rambling again

Even the wiki climate terrorists recognise that the green house effect has nothing to do with a greenhouse

And the temperature gradient of a dead body or egg is irrelevant to the GHE. The relevant fact is the core of an egg is heating the surface and the sun heats the surface of the earth, therefore if you slow down the cooling of either surface it becomes warmer.

The way you guys talk anybody would think this was hard.

The surface of any heated object that has reached equilibrium will become warmer if you slow down the rate of cooling. There is no ifs buts and maybes about this.

I'm not going to re-open that ludicrous discussion, but the truth is you kept on changing the goal posts, again and again. My error was getting so emotionally involved I allowed you to change your original argument and control the debate.

In fact it was steve that humorously came up with the idea that a dead body could be its own source of energy if the bacteria began decomposing the body, thereby creating a heat source. He knew what the argument was about.

It all went downhill from there.

You appear to be quite conceited and cannot bear the thought of admitting being wrong. Numerouno and you argue about the dumbest things endlessly. I stopped posting in the other thread because you never once could admit being wrong or even opinionated no matter how much common sense, data and sources were given. Your standard response is always the same: obfuscate, deflect, redirect and always remind us what a privilege it is for us be educated by you.

No goal posts were changed and I do not obfuscate. (Obfuscation is intentional deceit for some undeclared purpose)

Yes Steve came up with the dead body, and i said if you put a blanket on a dead body the surface would become warmer.

From that point onwards you guys self destructed.

Endlessly you claimed the goal posts were changed and you are still doing it.

The topic is not so very hard at all.

1.The atmosphere is generally a cold body. The surface is generally a warm body.
2. The cold body of the atmosphere does not heat the warmer body of the surface.
3. The surface is warmer because of the presence of the atmosphere.
4. The surface is heated by the Sun
5. The atmosphere acts like a blanket to reduce the cooling rate of the surface
6. If you reduce the cooling rate of any heated surface it must become warmer

What aspect of that is so impossible to understand?

No goal posts were changed. You are just refusing to learn.

And you make too much of the word trapped. A better word is restricted. If the flow of heat is restricted then the higher temperature enables all of the heat to escape as it did before.

[graywolf]

I know when we get into the second half of melt season a lot of you guys would rather pretend it isn't occurring ( yet again!) but this is the Arctic Ice Thread for discussions about the current melt season.

There a plenty of other threads better suited to your whitterings.

Yup Thermo! That Beaufort high looks ready to flame some of the areas showing low concentration?

We slipped to 5th lowest yesterday and , at current rates of loss ( set to increase over the next week) we are 3 1/2 days behind 2013!!!

I am ever more convinced that this novel season now completes the way the 'New Arctic' reacts to all the combinations of weather types over a season? The only one we have yet to see is the dreaded 'Perfect Storm' for melt conditions as we witnessed in 07'......I guess none of us need wonder as to what that would bring to the basin!!!

[Andrew]

Jul 14, 2013 15:06:25 GMT icefisher said:

Jul 14, 2013 10:03:30 GMT Andrew said:

Icefisher

Strawman

Hmmm, changing the goal posts once again?

The goal posts were never changed.

According to your line of thinking if a person points out you are confused, then they are deliberately lying and conceited, and you are justified in being abusive.

Apparently in your World it is normal to sneer at another person and say right in their face "hmmm, changing the goal posts once again"

In my world if you treat a person like that you are likely to get a punch in the face.

It is sort of funny really to think about what people are really like the other side of their keyboards.

What kind of a person says to another "hmmmm changing the goal posts once again?" How actually do you say that? Is the voice high pitched with the lips curled up, or is the voice flat and condescending as you look down upon the other like you are God almighty?

"Hmmm, changing the goal posts once again?"

What is it with you and that expression?

I think actually it is another strawman. It is a bogus argument created by you, that distracts the conversation as if the argument is a real one.

Meanwhile you avoided the reality that you cannot correctly write a sentence that describes the thing you write about in such great length

>>Obviously a warm object warming its own surface and a cold blanket at the same time does not qualify as an example of a cold object warming a warm object.

A strawman An irrelevant comment or argument that distracts from the topic in hand.

>>but iceskater have you forgotten that an object radiates at a rate in accordance with its temperature? thats a law of radiation. it doesn't slow down.

Another strawman in reply

>>"Hmmm, changing the goal posts once again?"

Yet another strawman in reply

How many strawmen are you going to produce to avoid dealing with the issue?

[sigurdur]

The Arctic Ice is continuing to disappear. Is the current rate statistically different than previous rates?

[icefisher]

Jul 14, 2013 19:25:50 GMT Andrew said:

The goal posts were never changed.

Actually the goal posts were changed numerous times. I have been fixating on when you changed from a blanket put on a dead body will warm the dead body. Apparently, when you realized the untenability of your position you went back and deleted a 100 or more your posts defending the position and used as a lame excuse you were cleansing yourself of attacks by critics.

Pretty weak excuse, erasing the evidence that exonerated you seems an odd thing to do.

All that was left was Magellan's original post of mocking the idea of throwing a blanket over a dead body would warm it.

No particular problem with that. So you are a sensitive guy. I don't think the worse of you if you are a bit sensitive.

The problem is it leaves your position on the entire matter of greenhouse warming horribly murky.

I tried to rectify it by building the multi-shelled model that you provided the radiation vectors for. This reestablished that you believed in backradiation.

You said during its creation you were going to do this to humor me and you hoped that when done I would realize we were talking about a small effect and could move on. Problem here was your radiation vectors added up to a huge temperature difference. Once the math was done you have chosen to never again recognize that model.

Its not clear what you support anymore. But you continue to argue the blanket theory that actually depends upon bulk without recognizing that it does.

Backradiation could exist in blanket model but it serves no role and does not control the flow of heat at a rigid 50% as your version of the shell model did and the out of balance model described by Steve that tried to recognize each shell as having half the temperature of the previous shell. At least going through the discipline of balancing such a model we learned that each shells temperature difference is less that Steve thought it was.

In the blanket model, traditional insulation, the "blanket inner surface" will warm instantaneously and in accordance with radiation laws to the radiant temperature of the warm body.

This equalized and instantaneous interface now joined between the body and blanket becomes the door through which heat flows. As the blanket draws off heat from the inner blanket surface its instantaneously replenished by the radiating body.

Its instantaneous because neither the warm surface nor the inner blanket surface have any mass and thus the surface has zero heat capacity.

No back radiation is necessary but its not ruled out, its just meaningless in this context. Heat cannot flow the other way anyway by virtue of the 2nd law. The flow is controlled by radiation constants and conductivity of the objects. Flow decreases as the heat content of the blanket rises. The thicker the blanket the more the flow will decrease. But this is conduction and for conduction to be substantial such variables as convection must be dealt with. You cannot ignore convection. Of course since the models do not deal with convection sellers of gloom and doom are required to pooh pooh convection as mattering suggesting they support that stupid shell model instead that you at least at one time supported. Not that should be an embarrassment as this is a very fine point but if the heat is allowed to reside in the receptive body then that heat has to be accounted for as to where it goes from there. . . .convection is the most able mover of heat in a gas if its not instantly shed as Steve maintains it is. But worse the blanket analogy no longer exists if you go that route as it becomes simply an interface with zero heat content.

I am not even convinced there is a one way glass effect from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but accept its possible kind of like I accept UFOs are possible as I have never seen either.

the Woods experiment says no. But the woods experiment had to deal with convection on conduction which appears at a minimum eliminated any such effect.

The argument against Woods is so weak as to not have any force. (the atmosphere is not a real greenhouse?) Conductive losses do not occur at the top of the atmosphere but radiant losses do and without backradiation how does heat get back to the surface and how does the amount captured by modtran calculations not get lost to space instead of serving to slow surface cooling?

Spencer acknowledges that GHG are responsible for destablizing the atmosphere by cooling the top of the atmosphere leading to convection. So there is no clear critique of woods to be found via the claim the atmosphere is not a greenhouse.

One would think it could be settled with a vacuum filled greenhouse but nobody has disputed Woods by doing that, maybe it can't be done. It seems reasonable people have tried and failed as people seldom publish their failures. Some that do erase their failures after publishing them. Most never get clear about what they support and sort of stumble around muttering a lot of inconsistent stuff. . . .some do all of the above.

bottom line here I probably botched something above as its a complex topic but in few words what I am looking for is a commitment to either a radiation/backradiation model or an insulation model. G&T posed that dilemma to the science world and got no response so I figure you don't know what you are standing for either.

And to clarify I am not asking for anything I would not provide. I very clearly stand for the insulation model as it is the heart of the passive solar model that uses all the natural climate responses including convection and conduction and non-greenhouse gases to generate additional heat in the atmosphere and when the atmosphere is hotter than the surface (the majority of each day) it has this insulation sequestered heat to raise the average surface temperature as well.

[Andrew]

Jul 14, 2013 21:42:37 GMT icefisher said:

Jul 14, 2013 19:25:50 GMT Andrew said:

The goal posts were never changed.

Actually the goal posts were changed numerous times. I have been fixating on when you changed from a blanket put on a dead body will warm the dead body. Apparently, when you realized the untenability of your position you went back and deleted a 100 or more your posts defending the position and used as a lame excuse you were cleansing yourself of attacks by critics.

Pretty weak excuse, erasing the evidence that exonerated you seems an odd thing to do.

All that was left was Magellan's original post of mocking the idea of throwing a blanket over a dead body would warm it.

No particular problem with that. So you are a sensitive guy. I don't think the worse of you if you are a bit sensitive.

The problem is it leaves your position on the entire matter of greenhouse warming horribly murky.

I tried to rectify it by building the multi-shelled model that you provided the radiation vectors for. This reestablished that you believed in backradiation.

You said during its creation you were going to do this to humor me and you hoped that when done I would realize we were talking about a small effect and could move on. Problem here was your radiation vectors added up to a huge temperature difference. Once the math was done you have chosen to never again recognize that model.

Its not clear what you support anymore. But you continue to argue the blanket theory that actually depends upon bulk without recognizing that it does.

Backradiation could exist in blanket model but it serves no role and does not control the flow of heat at a rigid 50% as your version of the shell model did and the out of balance model described by Steve that tried to recognize each shell as having half the temperature of the previous shell. At least going through the discipline of balancing such a model we learned that each shells temperature difference is less that Steve thought it was.

In the blanket model, traditional insulation, the "blanket inner surface" will warm instantaneously and in accordance with radiation laws to the radiant temperature of the warm body.

This equalized and instantaneous interface now joined between the body and blanket becomes the door through which heat flows. As the blanket draws off heat from the inner blanket surface its instantaneously replenished by the radiating body.

Its instantaneous because neither the warm surface nor the inner blanket surface have any mass and thus the surface has zero heat capacity.

No back radiation is necessary but its not ruled out, its just meaningless in this context. Heat cannot flow the other way anyway by virtue of the 2nd law. The flow is controlled by radiation constants and conductivity of the objects. Flow decreases as the heat content of the blanket rises. The thicker the blanket the more the flow will decrease. But this is conduction and for conduction to be substantial such variables as convection must be dealt with. You cannot ignore convection. Of course since the models do not deal with convection sellers of gloom and doom are required to pooh pooh convection as mattering suggesting they support that stupid shell model instead that you at least at one time supported. Not that should be an embarrassment as this is a very fine point but if the heat is allowed to reside in the receptive body then that heat has to be accounted for as to where it goes from there. . . .convection is the most able mover of heat in a gas if its not instantly shed as Steve maintains it is. But worse the blanket analogy no longer exists if you go that route as it becomes simply an interface with zero heat content.

I am not even convinced there is a one way glass effect from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but accept its possible kind of like I accept UFOs are possible as I have never seen either.

the Woods experiment says no. But the woods experiment had to deal with convection on conduction which appears at a minimum eliminated any such effect.

The argument against Woods is so weak as to not have any force. (the atmosphere is not a real greenhouse?) Conductive losses do not occur at the top of the atmosphere but radiant losses do and without backradiation how does heat get back to the surface and how does the amount captured by modtran calculations not get lost to space instead of serving to slow surface cooling?

Spencer acknowledges that GHG are responsible for destablizing the atmosphere by cooling the top of the atmosphere leading to convection. So there is no clear critique of woods to be found via the claim the atmosphere is not a greenhouse.

One would think it could be settled with a vacuum filled greenhouse but nobody has disputed Woods by doing that, maybe it can't be done. It seems reasonable people have tried and failed as people seldom publish their failures. Some that do erase their failures after publishing them. Most never get clear about what they support and sort of stumble around muttering a lot of inconsistent stuff. . . .some do all of the above.

bottom line here I probably botched something above as its a complex topic but in few words what I am looking for is a commitment to either a radiation/backradiation model or an insulation model. G&T posed that dilemma to the science world and got no response so I figure you don't know what you are standing for either.

And to clarify I am not asking for anything I would not provide. I very clearly stand for the insulation model as it is the heart of the passive solar model that uses all the natural climate responses including convection and conduction and non-greenhouse gases to generate additional heat in the atmosphere and when the atmosphere is hotter than the surface (the majority of each day) it has this insulation sequestered heat to raise the average surface temperature as well.

You are just making things up. As far as i know my original response to Steves dead body bacteria post is still present as I thought i had already used it to stop the nonesense about me changing the goal posts.

I have not backed down from the ending to the saga that happened when you went very silent here for three months after you asked me to provide SB calculations for your one molecule thick screen.

No goal posts were changed.

I did delete my posts as i wanted to purge myself of the toxic influence you and Magellan had upon my life after i experienced months of abuse from you and I was not able to get it to stop despite all my honest attempts at a dialogue.

It has nothing to do with your stupid claim that it was a childish response to your criticism. You constantly accused me of dishonestly changing the terms of the conversation with your stupid change the goal posts claim. Absolutely nothing was changed of any significance whatsoever. After months of the intense abuse I needed a response that i had control of.

Why the hell do you keep saying goal posts were changed?

It is just a stupid strawman.

The atmosphere acts like an insulator involving backradiation. The earth is warmer because of the presence of the atmosphere but the body of the atmosphere cannot heat the body of the warmer surface. This has been explained to you an incredible number of times.

Even your own one molecule thick screen thought experiment demonstrates it.

No knowledgeable person is going to dispute the influence water vapour has on enabling life on earth to exist as it does at present.

The fact is if i can find that response to Steve it is not going to cause you to change your mind about me and you are going to keep on coming with the same garbage you have been producing more or less ever since i decided i could explain to you how the earth was warmer because of water vapour.