[Truth To Power]

You write a lot without saying anything real.

No. Everything I wrote was real. That is why you can't answer any of it, and always have to resort to disingenuous strawman fallacies.

You do not seem to be able to provide a clear and verifiable argument.

That is just another bald falsehood on your part.

In fact, I predict that you will simply talk about how you already made a super argument while actually refusing to make a clear argument.

I have made many clear arguments. You just evade them using various disingenuous tricks like strawman fallacies, ground shifting, gaslighting, ignoring, etc.

Unless you have a clear explanation for the observed warming in the last 150 years, you have no reason to reply to me.

I have stated the explanation multiple times: the sun going from its lowest to its highest sustained activity in thousands of years. You simply ignore it and claim I have not said it.

[Truth To Power]

I have never before 'met' anyone as ignorant as TtP, who just kept replying no matter how confused his posts have become.

None of my posts is confused.

Today, he didn't know that a straight line on a graph makes the relationship 'linear'.

Whereas you still don't know that it doesn't, even after I explained why, very patiently, in clear, simple, grammatical English.

He didn't know that 'proportional' means linear unless something more is added to to make it exponential.

Graph xy=1 and look at the shape of the curve.

He thinks that just 2 relationships have a similar graph in that both are linear, that it proves that one explains the other.

You simply made that up. Inevitably.

[Pants-of-dog]

I was right.

@Truth To Power did not provide an argument.

[Truth To Power]

:lol:



^ Da fuq is this then?

It's an image captured by a probe using ambient light that was largely near-infrared emitted by the surface (hence the orangey tint). You seem to be unaware of the fact that a camera of the type used on the Venera probes can easily take a perfectly good picture of a scene that would look rather dim to the human eye. While the intensity of the sunlight at Venus's orbital distance is about double that at the earth's distance, only ~3% of incident sunlight reaches the planet's surface, giving the dim look that is evident in the photo you posted.

The bottom of the atmosphere is in thermal contact with the top of the atmosphere.

No it isn't.

Gas laws don't have shit to do with it.

Then why do the P/T graphs of all the planets with substantial atmospheres follow the CGL in the dense parts of their atmospheres, independently of GHG composition?

Maybe learn some thermodynamics 101, and then you will learn to stop embarrassing yourself like this.

I actually studied atmospheric physics at an internationally respected university. You self-evidently did not.

[Truth To Power]

I was right.

@Truth To Power did not provide an argument.

I was right. PoD falsely claimed I did not provide an argument.

[Truth To Power]

Yes, he did say this.

But somehow, you can't quote me saying it...?

Remember the conspiracy they assume includes tens of thousands of people from 100 nations, some of whom would be telling us about it.

No, that is an absurd fabrication. Just a handful of people with their hands on money and power would be enough.

He has got to be mistaken about the jet exhausts, because the airports were built decades before jets were common.

When the airports were built is irrelevant. The question is when the thermometers were moved to the airports.

I would bet that the thermometers were placed in the shade 5 ft. up from the ground on the side of the control tower.

We know they weren't.

To put them way out in the middle of a field at the end of a runway is a very inconvenient place to put them. Why would they do this in the 30s or 40s? Therefore, they didn't do this.

Again, you base your beliefs on what you think must be true rather than what is true.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

Making some vague reference to solar activity being at a maximum for the last few thousand years is not an argument.

Are you talking sunspots? TSI? Something else?

[Truth To Power]

As far as I can tell, if I understand TtP correctly, and this is hard because he explains nothing in depth;
what TtP is claiming is that all the heat coming up at night from the ground has already been absorbed long before it reaches the top of the atmosphere. Maybe in the 1st few, several, or many thousand feet.

So adding more CO2 to the air just lowers the level at which all the heat has been absorbed.

And more relevantly, increases the altitude from which it escapes to outer space.

It is a silly argument, but it does seem to be his claim.

There's nothing silly about it.

This based on TtP's assertion that the guy who's name I can't spell proved 120 years ago that because there is less and less CO2 as you gain altitude, so that at some altitude almost of the heat radiated up by atoms at that level will escape directly into space.

No, that has nothing to do with it.

And this proves that adding CO2 into a well mixed atmosphere will not trap heat at all.

That is an absurd strawman.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

Making some vague reference to solar activity being at a maximum for the last few thousand years is not an argument.

It wasn't a vague reference, and yes, it most certainly is an argument.

Are you talking sunspots? TSI? Something else?

Activity that affects sunspots as well as climate, but has little effect on TSI.

[Pants-of-dog]

It wasn't a vague reference, and yes, it most certainly is an argument.

Activity that affects sunspots as well as climate, but has little effect on TSI.

So some unnamed and unknown aspect of the sun has been at a maximum for thousands of years.

But you cannot show this since you have no idea what aspect of the sun you are talking about.

[Truth To Power]

So some unnamed and unknown aspect of the sun has been at a maximum for thousands of years.

No, you simply made that up. It has nothing to do with anything I said.

But you cannot show this since you have no idea what aspect of the sun you are talking about.

Well, we can rule out TSI, anyway.

[Steve_American]

:roll: I'm the one who has been schooling the local ignorami in atmospheric physics, and I will thank you to remember it.

<obviousness snipped>

That is not informative, like saying that putting another cotton blanket on top of an existing stack of 40 wool blankets and one cotton blanket will make the bed warmer. Certainly, but how much warmer? AGW theory says adding one cotton blanket to the stack will make the bed 2.5-3.5C warmer, whereas common sense and the physics of heat transfer say it will only make the bed a small fraction of 1C warmer.

TtP does not seem to understand how R-values work. Here "R-values" are how we rate insulation to contain heat in refrigs and buildings.

He is correct that the R-value of 40 wool & 1 cotton blankets is so high that very little of a sleeper's heat will be escaping the bed, except maybe going down out the bottom. So, adding another down comforter will not matter much, let alone a thin cotton blanket.
. . . This may be the situation on Venus, maybe.

However, we know that heat is escaping the Earth into space.

So, we know that the Earth does not have the equivalent of 40 wool blankets on it.

He exaggerated for effect, and got carried away into ridiculous territory.

He seems to think that just because some guy 120 years ago showed that almost every photon of IR heat/light is absorbed by the lower atmosphere, that therefore, it is like the world has 40 blankets on it.
He seems to think 417 parts per million is enough to equal the R-value of 40 wool blankets.
He overestimates the effect of 1/2500 CO2 = 0.04% of the air being CO2.
.

[Saeko]

I actually studied atmospheric physics at an internationally respected university. You self-evidently did not.

Then prove it by calculating the radiative balance of the Earth (assuming a single atmospheric layer) in each of the following scenarios:

1) An atmosphere with no CO2 - 0 ppm

2) An atmosphere with pre-industrial levels of CO2 - 200 ppm

3) An atmosphere with current levels of CO2 - 400 ppm

[ingliz]

@Truth To Power

The Greenhouse Effect

In

CO2 molecules absorb photons at around 15 microns: incoming light from the sun tends to have much shorter wavelengths than this.

CO2 doesn’t stop sunlight from warming the Earth.

Out

When the Earth re-emits this light, it has a longer wavelength in the infrared spectrum. And this is where CO2's 15 microns absorption range comes in. The most common greenhouse gas, water vapour, is piss-poor at absorbing photons in the 15 microns range. So, in effect, CO2 selects for absorption light that should have escaped Earth’s atmosphere. And when those absorbed photons are re-emitted by the CO2 molecules, about half that infrared energy is bounced back to earth, heating the lower atmosphere.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, you simply made that up. It has nothing to do with anything I said.

Well, we can rule out TSI, anyway.

You claim that the sun is at some sort of maximum, and has been for the last few thousand years, and this is driving global warming….

…but you do not know what aspect of the sun is at a maximum, and…..

….global warming did not start thousands of years ago.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

The Greenhouse Effect

I am the one schooling the local ignorami in atmospheric physics, and I will thank you to remember it.

CO2 molecules absorb photons at around 15 microns: incoming light from the sun tends to have much shorter wavelengths than this.

CO2 doesn’t stop sunlight from warming the Earth.

When the Earth re-emits this light, it has a longer wavelength in the infrared spectrum. In effect, CO2 selects for light that should have the easiest time escaping Earth’s atmosphere - The most common greenhouse gas, water vapour, cannot efficiently absorb photons in the 15 microns range - and traps its heat.

All obvious and well known -- even, apparently, to you. But now for the part that you evidently don't know, and won't until I school you in it: only a small fraction of outgoing IR radiation is at 15 microns, and it was already being fully absorbed by the pre-industrial level of CO2. So as Angstrom proved over 120 years ago, adding CO2 to standard sea-level atmospheric air has almost no effect on its IR absorption, either at 15 microns or any other wavelength. The whole CO2-controls-temperature narrative is therefore directly and conclusively disproved by the basic physics of radiative heat transfer.

[Truth To Power]

You claim that the sun is at some sort of maximum, and has been for the last few thousand years, and this is driving global warming….

No. Of course you cannot quote me saying any such thing because you simply made it up and falsely attributed it to me, as is your wont. Anyone who has read any significant number of my posts on climate and global warming knows I have stated many times that the Little Ice Age (~1340-1840 CE) was both the coldest 500y period in the last 10,000 years and the period of lowest sustained solar activity in at least a few thousand years and possibly 10Ky.

…but you do not know what aspect of the sun is at a maximum, and…..

There are a number of indices -- sunspots, the length of sunspot cycles, magnetic activity, the fraction of UV radiation, the solar wind, coronal ejections, etc. -- but it is not clear what the underlying phenomenon actually consists of or how it affects climate. TSI is the index of solar activity that is known to vary least with climate, and has therefore been mandated as the only permissible one.

….global warming did not start thousands of years ago.

I have stated the fact, many times, that the sun WAS at a multi-thousand year maximum in the 20th century, during the same period that the earth was warming rapidly following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years, during which solar activity was also at a multi-thousand-year minimum. You just ignore it and claim, absurdly, that my writing isn't clear enough for you to understand.

[Truth To Power]

Then prove it by calculating the radiative balance of the Earth (assuming a single atmospheric layer) in each of the following scenarios:

1) An atmosphere with no CO2 - 0 ppm

2) An atmosphere with pre-industrial levels of CO2 - 200 ppm

3) An atmosphere with current levels of CO2 - 400 ppm

You have merely proved again that you know no atmospheric physics, and probably no science beyond high school level. The radiative balance will be exactly the same in all three cases: energy in = energy out.

You also don't know enough atmospheric physics to know that 200 ppm is not merely pre-industrial but pre-Holocene: such low CO2 can only occur during an Ice Age, when the oceans are cold enough to absorb ~100ppm of CO2 from the atmosphere. The pre-industrial level was ~280ppm, not 200ppm.

You also don't seem to be aware that if there were no CO2 in the air at all, the earth would be so cold that it would freeze completely, as almost all the water vapor would also condense out of the atmosphere, leaving no significant GHGs.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

Making some vague reference to solar activity being at a maximum for the last few thousand years is not an argument.

You cannot be serious. You are actually pretending not to know the semantic value of "for" from context, and are substituting "for" meaning with a duration of ("It rained for forty days and forty nights.") in place of "for" meaning with reference to ("The best round I've played for the last 30 years.").

What a complete waste of perfectly good electricity you are.

[late]

You have merely proved again that you know no atmospheric physics, and probably no science beyond high school level. The radiative balance will be exactly the same in all three cases: energy in = energy out.

Ironic.

You pointed out that without carbon dioxide, we would be really cold. Science detected the warming over 50 years ago, as I have told you many times. They looked for it because of the rising CO2 levels. The scientists reached consensus over 20 years ago, which I've also pointed out many times.

So while you are the best Big Oil liar I have ever seen, that means you're a disgusting joke in really bad taste.

You have the integrity of overcooked spaghetti, the expertise of a hand puppet, and completely refuse to acknowledge when you are wrong (which is nearly all the time).

But I love your absurd pontification, you're also like a bad SNL character...