"Whether we like it or not" - Page 31 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15199878
late wrote:You guys are wasting your time, he prob gets paid by the word.

Thanks for disproving yourself. My economy of expression alone proves I can't possibly be paid by the word. So you are just makin' $#!+ up again.
#15199879
Truth To Power wrote:
My economy of expression alone proves I can't possibly be paid by the word.



You yak a lot, most aren't short, and they're pretty much all crap, obviously crap.

#15199880
Truth To Power wrote:this fact has been removed from the climate record

No, it hasn't.

Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling.

Global Temperatures

The year began in ENSO-neutral conditions, transitioning to La Niña by August 2020. During the year, each monthly temperature for the months of January through November ranked among the four warmest on record for their respective months. While the months of January, May, and September were record warm. Meanwhile, the month of December had a global land and ocean surface temperature departure of 0.78°C (1.40°F) above the 20th century average—this was the smallest monthly temperature departure during 2020 and was the eighth warmest December on record.

With a slightly cooler end to the year, the year 2020 secured the rank of second warmest year in the 141-year record, with a global land and ocean surface temperature departure from average of +0.98°C (+1.76°F). This value is only 0.02°C (0.04°F) shy of tying the record high value of +1.00°C (+1.80°F) set in 2016 and only 0.03°C (0.05°F) above the now third warmest year on record set in 2019. The seven warmest years in the 1880–2020 record have all occurred since 2014, while the 10 warmest years have occurred since 2005. The year 1998 is no longer among the 10 warmest years on record, currently ranking as the 11th warmest year in the 141-year record. The year 2020 marks the 44th consecutive year (since 1977) with global land and ocean temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average.


Image
Source: NOAA 2020 Annual Climate Report


:)
#15199892
Truth To Power wrote:Recognize this?

"Then state a relevant fact showing that the sun is causing the observed global warming."

Use of the present continuous tense indicates an action that is now in progress.


Again:

When people talk about the observed global warming, they usually mean a multi-decade warming, not just the last few years.

Then why do you always pretend that the sun being in a period of low activity now implies that its historically high activity until several years ago could not have caused the warming observed until several years ago?


The historically high solar activity started thousands of years ago, while the warming started 150 years ago.

Solar activity has steadily declined since about 1985, while temperatures have steadily increased in the same period.

Studies have looked at solar activity as a cause of global warming and found that the effect was minor compared to CO2 and other GHGs.

I already posted the evidence that they have been.


No.

Even Spencer's website shows that 2020 was as 2016.

:roll: But that "record" only begins at the end of the coldest period in the last 10,000 years! If your temperature record begins in February, of course at the end of July, July is going to be the hottest month ever recorded! That doesn't mean there is anything odd or alarming about July being hotter than February, March, April, May and June. You just weren't keeping records for all the previous Junes, Julys and Augusts.


No, the record began in 1659, but did not become common in the west until shortly after 185ll.

No, that's just more antiscientific claptrap from you. By that "logic," the angle of the sun does not cut it as an explanation for why July is the hottest month since February: the sun was on average higher in June.


Explain how the fact that temperatures increased while solar activity decreased does not contradict the claim that solar activity is driving global warming.

See? You pretend not to have claimed the earth has warmed since 2016, but now you are trying to change the subject to "the last decade."


When people talk about the observed global warming, they usually mean a multi-decade warming, not just the last few years.

You seem to be arguing that the decrease in solar activity that started in 1985 is responsible for this imaginary decrease in temperature that supposedly started in 2016.

Why is there a 30 year lag? The sun's energy takes 8 minutes to get here.

No, I refuse to waste my time hunting through dozens of pages of posts to find the ones where I provided the evidence just because you always claim I have not provided evidence no matter how many times I provide it.


I skimmed the thread.

You do not seem to have supported your claim that "additional CO2 ... has no significant effect on the heat budget."

I provided a link to a study showing that CO2 and other GHGs have measurably impacted heat loss to space.

Sure. Just as adding one cotton blanket to a stack of 30 wool blankets and one cotton blanket will make all the blankets lower in the stack warmer. But how much difference will it make to the guy in the bed?

GET IT???


So you agree that merely looking at the single layer right above the Earth ignores the fact that saturation of higher layers will make the bottommost layer even warmer.
#15199919
Truth To Power wrote:Without reading further, I know with 100% certainty that you are about to make a false claim about what I understand:

See?

And that is what GHGs do.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Yes it has [become quite inactive]. You even quoted a post of PoD's that showed it has decreased.

Just as Darwin correctly stated that species result from variations in inherited characteristics without ever knowing what DNA is, much less how it works.


Here TtP ignores the fact that scientists have about 50 times more tools to look at reality now, than they did in Darwin's time.

I assert that it is very, very unlikely that the sun has gotten enough less active to have caused the last 5 years of cooling, without modern scientists (with their 50 times more tools) being able to say why. Solar irradiance has decrease a tiny amount, but it is not enough to explain the very recent cooling.
. . . BTW, the sun spot cycle will be increasing solar irradiance the next year or 2. The stall in heating will reverse then.

However, before the last 5 years the Earth for about 50 years was warming, during the time frame that TtP asserts that the sun was in a period in which the sun was quite inactive. And in which measured (by scientists with their wonderful new tools) solar irradiance was declining.

The other day TtP asserted that their is no *direct* evidence that ACC aka AGW has caused any droughts.
This true in the sense that there is no direct evidence that the Earth pulls things down. We can measure the effect and deduce that it does.
In the same way the Sahara Desert has been expanding north and especially south for decades. For the same decades that CO2 in the air has been increasing at an exponential rate. We can also in this case measure the effect and deduce that more CO2 is the cause of both heating and the Sahara moving south.
.
#15199921
ingliz wrote:No, it hasn't.

Yes it has. What NOAA records in the 1970s showed as a sharp decline has now, in the record you posted below, been turned into a mere pause in heating.
With a slightly cooler end to the year, the year 2020 secured the rank of second warmest year in the 141-year record, with a global land and ocean surface temperature departure from average of +0.98°C (+1.76°F). This value is only 0.02°C (0.04°F) shy of tying the record high value of +1.00°C (+1.80°F) set in 2016 and only 0.03°C (0.05°F) above the now third warmest year on record set in 2019. The seven warmest years in the 1880–2020 record have all occurred since 2014, while the 10 warmest years have occurred since 2005. The year 1998 is no longer among the 10 warmest years on record, currently ranking as the 11th warmest year in the 141-year record. The year 2020 marks the 44th consecutive year (since 1977) with global land and ocean temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average.

Yes, all sorts of amazing climate records fall when you retroactively alter the instrument readings to conform to the CO2-controls-climate narrative.
Image

See? The sharp 1940s-70s cooling has been erased.
#15199923
Steve_American wrote:Here TtP ignores the fact that scientists have about 50 times more tools to look at reality now, than they did in Darwin's time.

No, but you ignore the fact that the realities they are looking at are also 50 times harder to observe.
I assert that it is very, very unlikely that the sun has gotten enough less active to have caused the last 5 years of cooling, without modern scientists (with their 50 times more tools) being able to say why.

There are some hypotheses. One of them might be right. It is very difficult to observe what is going on inside the sun (duh).
Solar irradiance has decrease a tiny amount, but it is not enough to explain the very recent cooling.

How much less likely is it, then, that increased CO2 can explain the cooling, hmmmmmmmmmm?
. . . BTW, the sun spot cycle will be increasing solar irradiance the next year or 2. The stall in heating will reverse then.

Maybe. What if it doesn't? Thermometer readings can always just be altered to match the AGW narrative, but how are you going to make sea ice melt? How many years (decades? centuries?) will have to pass with no further shrinkage of arctic sea ice extent below the 2012 record low before you will admit that the earth is not actually getting any warmer, fabricated thermometer data notwithstanding?
However, before the last 5 years the Earth for about 50 years was warming, during the time frame that TtP asserts that the sun was in a period in which the sun was quite inactive.

No, I stated the fact that until ~10 years ago, the sun had, in the 20th century, exhibited the highest sustained level of activity in thousands of years.
And in which measured (by scientists with their wonderful new tools) solar irradiance was declining.

:roll: TSI is known not to be the relevant factor. That is why it was selected as the only permissible index of the sun's effect on climate.
The other day TtP asserted that their is no *direct* evidence that ACC aka AGW has caused any droughts.

No, I stated the fact that there is no credible empirical evidence that either the frequency or the severity of droughts or floods has increased since pre-industrial times despite a 50% increase in CO2.
This true in the sense that there is no direct evidence that the Earth pulls things down. We can measure the effect and deduce that it does.

:knife:
In the same way the Sahara Desert has been expanding north and especially south for decades.

No, it has been shrinking for decades:

https://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/ ... -sahel.pdf

It was expanding from the 1920s to the early 1980s, but has shrunk since then. Lying liars who want to deceive people about what is happening with the climate use desertification statistics that include the rapid expansion of the Sahara before 1985, and do not separate that trend from the reversal to shrinkage since 1985.
For the same decades that CO2 in the air has been increasing at an exponential rate. We can also in this case measure the effect and deduce that more CO2 is the cause of both heating and the Sahara moving south.

During the last three decades when CO2 has been highest, the Sahara has been shrinking.
#15199931
@Truth To Power

Why the obsession with the Sahara? Desertification now affects 168 countries that are Parties to the UNCCD.
#15199935
Truth To Power wrote:No, but you ignore the fact that the realities they are looking at are also 50 times harder to observe.

There are some hypotheses. One of them might be right. It is very difficult to observe what is going on inside the sun (duh).

How much less likely is it, then, that increased CO2 can explain the cooling, hmmmmmmmmmm?

Maybe. What if it doesn't? [highlight=yellow]Thermometer readings can always just be altered to match the AGW narrative,[/highlight] but how are you going to make sea ice melt? How many years (decades? centuries?) will have to pass with no further shrinkage of arctic sea ice extent below the 2012 record low before you will admit that the earth is not actually getting any warmer, fabricated thermometer data notwithstanding?

No, I stated the fact that until ~10 years ago, the sun had, in the 20th century, exhibited the highest sustained level of activity in thousands of years.

:roll: TSI is known not to be the relevant factor. That is why it was selected as the only permissible index of the sun's effect on climate.

No, I stated the fact that there is no credible empirical evidence that either the frequency or the severity of droughts or floods has increased since pre-industrial times despite a 50% increase in CO2.

:knife:

[highlight=yellow]No, it [the Sahara] has been shrinking for decades:[/highlight]
https://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/ ... -sahel.pdf

It was expanding from the 1920s to the early 1980s, but has shrunk since then. Lying liars who want to deceive people about what is happening with the climate use desertification statistics that include the rapid expansion of the Sahara before 1985, and do not separate that trend from the reversal to shrinkage since 1985.

During the last three decades when CO2 has been highest, the Sahara has been shrinking.

It took 1 min. to google and find this.

https://earth.org/data_visualization/th ... ra-desert/

It seems like the Sahara in mostly moving north.

The Sahara expanding is one long continuous drought.

You keep asserting this, without any evidence that has not already been explained away.
.
#15199983
Steve_American wrote:It took 1 min. to google and find this.

https://earth.org/data_visualization/th ... ra-desert/

It seems like the Sahara in mostly moving north.

The Sahara expanding is one long continuous drought.

You keep asserting this, without any evidence that has not already been explained away.

:roll: The Sahara is mainly expanding in areas where greatly increased populations are still stripping vegetation for fuel to cook with because they don't have access to fossil fuels. You want to make their access to fossil fuels even more difficult.
#15199985
ingliz wrote:@Truth To Power

Why the obsession with the Sahara?

SA brought it up, not me.
Desertification now affects 168 countries that are Parties to the UNCCD.

And none of it is caused by CO2, which makes plants more tolerant of drought.
#15199986
Pants-of-dog wrote:When people talk about the observed global warming, they usually mean a multi-decade warming, not just the last few years.

So you agree that you were mistaken in claiming that climate "is" warming despite declining solar activity?
The historically high solar activity started thousands of years ago,

No it didn't. Solar activity was at a multi-millennium low as recently as the LIA.
while the warming started 150 years ago.

No it didn't. There were many episodes of warming before the most recent one, which started nearly 200 years ago, long before CO2 could possibly have been a factor.
Solar activity has steadily declined since about 1985,

No it hasn't. It was still high relative to historical norms until it declined dramatically just over a decade ago.
while temperatures have steadily increased in the same period.

No they haven't. Temperatures have exhibited alternating up- and down-trends of a few years' duration since good records began, and have fallen since 2016.

Why do you feel you have to make so many objectively false claims?
Studies have looked at solar activity as a cause of global warming and found that the effect was minor compared to CO2 and other GHGs.

Only studies that were not based on respect for empirical fact but on trying to contrive some means of support for the CO2-controls-climate narrative.
No.

Yes.
Even Spencer's website shows that 2020 was as 2016.

No it doesn't.
No, the record began in 1659,

No it didn't.
but did not become common in the west until shortly after 185ll.

Huh? What is 185ll?
Explain how the fact that temperatures increased while solar activity decreased does not contradict the claim that solar activity is driving global warming.

The same way the fact that temperatures increase from June to July while the angle of the sun is decreasing does not contradict the fact that July is hotter than June because the sun is high.
When people talk about the observed global warming, they usually mean a multi-decade warming, not just the last few years.

Yet when I point out the fact that solar activity was at a sustained multi-millennium high during the 20th century warming period, you immediately change the subject to the last few years, and claim that warming has continued when it has not.
You seem to be arguing that the decrease in solar activity that started in 1985

We have been over this several times before. Are you or are you not willing to know the fact that turning your thermostat down from 25C to 23C will nevertheless warm your house up from 20C to 22C? Are you or are you not willing to know the fact that it is the angle of the sun that causes July to be hotter than June, even though the sun is higher in June? Yes or no? I am not going to respond to you until you answer these questions.
is responsible for this imaginary decrease in temperature that supposedly started in 2016.

I provided the source.
Why is there a 30 year lag? The sun's energy takes 8 minutes to get here.

Why is August hotter than June even though the sun is lower?
You do not seem to have supported your claim that "additional CO2 ... has no significant effect on the heat budget."

Yes I have. I explained how adding CO2 just increases the emission altitude and window size and reduces the temperature.
I provided a link to a study showing that CO2 and other GHGs have measurably impacted heat loss to space.

No you didn't, as I already explained. The study only showed that the emission spectrum was that of the GHGs at the emission layer, not that the speed of heat loss to space had been affected.
So you agree that merely looking at the single layer right above the Earth ignores the fact that saturation of higher layers will make the bottommost layer even warmer.

Just as adding one cotton blanket to a stack of one cotton and 40 wool blankets will make the bottom blanket warmer. The guy in the bed just won't notice any difference.
#15199991
@Truth To Power

That seems to be another unclear collection of sentence fragments.

As I have told you repeatedly, it is not my job to parse those into an argument.

You do not seem to have presented any evidence for your claim that CO2 has no effect on the overall heat of the Earth and its atmosphere. Please note that I have presented evidence that CO2 and other GHGs have significantly reduced heat loss to space.

Your response about the thirty year lag is unclear. Are you arguing that the reason for thirty year lag is the same reason as the one month lag between July and August?

Your response about why solar activity is responsible for global warming is also unclear. Are you arguing that the reason the Earth getting warmer despite receiving less energy is the same reason as the one month lag between July and June?

You really need to clarify your arguments.

Also, increasing the emission altitude means the Earth is getting warmer. This means heat has to travel further to get to space, which means heat is spending more time in the atmosphere, which means the atmosphere is warming up, and some of this heat is reflected back to Earth.
#15199992
I have some time to devote to schooling SA in atmospheric physics today:
Steve_American wrote:. . . One point of a fact I need to point out at the start is --- the reasons that climate scientists do not talk much about the effect of water vapor in the air are 1] The amount of water vapor can not be effected directly because the oceans are a huge source of more or less water vapor depending on things like the temp of the oceans and air above them. Warm water evaporates faster and warm air holds more water vapor, which is why it sometimes rains more than before and causes flooding.

That is more or less correct. Water vapor is in an equilibrium we can't significantly affect, including by CO2 emissions, because the negative feedbacks are too strong.
And, 2] The amount of water vapor in the air depends on the amount of CO2 in the air,

No, that's just false. The amount of CO2 in the air (pre-industrial) depended on the temperature, and so did water vapor. CO2 itself cannot affect water vapor more than microscopically unless it is far lower than it has ever been.
which scientist believe heats the ocean & air, so scientists can calculate in their models the amount of water vapor by knowing the CO2 level.

That CO2 controls temperature is an inaccurate model assumption, not a fact.
He said his 40 wool blankets represent the effect of water vapor in the air because H2O is 40 times better at absorbing IR het/light than CO2 is.

No, because there are ~40x as many H2O molecules in the air near the earth's surface as CO2 molecules. The difference in IR absorption per molecule is like the difference between a wool blanket and a cotton one: water vapor absorbs IR better than CO2, just as wool is a better insulator than cotton.
. . . Just above TtP asserts that only absorption CO2 matters, all the rest can be ignored, so he does ignore it. However, in his reply to me on the last page he didn't ignore water vapor. He said it absorbs 40 times more than current levels of CO2 do.

I ignore water vapor in the previous case because its GH effect is effectively constant and cannot be significantly affected by human activity, including CO2 emissions. I include it in the present case because it explains why Angstrom got the results he did, and why anyone repeating his experiment will get the same results.
. . . There TtP wrote: "CO2's effect is strictly on IR absorption."

I think that TtP hopes that you will accept that absorption of IR heat/light means that the IR heat/light is blocked. It seems like it because [while he also asserts that energy in = energy out] here he wants you to believe that because the IR heat/light is absorbed it can not later somehow escape into space.

No, it is absorbed and re-emitted over and over again, maybe thousands of times, before it makes its way high enough in the atmosphere to escape into outer space.
Here he asserts that CO2's only effect is on absorption. If this was so, [so the CO2 does NOT reradiate the IR heat/light] then it follows that the CO2/air would be getting hugely hotter and would heat the air around it to millions of deg.C. This doesn't happen because the heat/light is (in fact) reradiated.

No, its effect on surface temperature is based on its absorption of IR radiation because that's the only way it can have an effect. The IR is immediately re-emitted in a random direction. The notion that CO2 has a significant effect on the earth's surface temperature is based on the fact that the re-emitted IR can go back down to the earth's surface. But as Angstrom showed, adding CO2 to standard atmospheric air has so little effect on IR absorption that the amount re-emitted back down to the surface is also barely affected.
I'm sure that TtP knows this. So, why did he assert that only absorption matters?

See above. Only absorption matters because re-emission can only happen after absorption.
. . . Is it because some is reradiated up and some down? This makes the description of the process very complicated. Too complicated to say it in a paragraph that a lay reader will be able to understand.

Nevertheless, that is what happens, and that is the relevant process. The lay reader may indeed find this difficult to understand, hence my blanket analogy.
The short answer is that the amount of energy that escapes to space must be very, very close to amount of solar energy that comes into the lower atmosphere or reaches the surface. We know this because each day, month, or better averaged over a year, the Earth warms or cools only about 0.0001 deg.C/day. That is 0.0001 deg.C per day.

No, we know it because the whole process is regulated by powerful negative feedbacks: the hotter something is, the faster it cools; the more CO2 there is in the air at the emission altitude, the more IR-excited molecules there are to emit IR to outer space; and the higher the emission altitude, the wider the angle that encompasses the overhead circular escape window.
. . . When TtP says that the IR heat/light is all absorbed in the 1st many meters from the land or water surface he may be right. But, it is all reradiated, half up and half down. Now as I just said, almost all of it does somehow reach space after being absorbed and reradiated many times. It is not blocked in the lower atmosphere.

You are learning from my explanations. Good.
. . . Therefore, it doesn't matter if it is all absorbed near the surface.

Yes, it does, because the difference between almost all and very nearly all is very small.
Almost all of the energy eventually reaches space.

It all does. In fact, a little more than that does, because the earth is constantly losing heat generated by radioactive decay in its interior, the friction of the tides converting its rotational energy into heat, etc.
. . . This percentage is very tiny. So, tiny that every possible verbal argument will not be accurate enough to pick up the tiny change that adding more CO2 to the air causes. However, it adds up more and more as the days become decades. That is, if you add up 0.0001 deg.C /day over the 10,957.5 days in 3 decades it becomes 1.09575 deg.C over 3 decades. If the amount of heating per day is actually 0.0002 deg.C/day then over 3 decades that total amount of heating is 2.1915 deg.C, or about 1.461 deg.C over 2 decades.

No. The negative feedback takes over. If the earth gets even microscopically warmer, it immediately just radiates heat away faster.
BTW --- climate scientists' models have to include the increase in water vapor in the air that will cause more heating.

The increase in water vapor caused by CO2 is a small fraction of what is assumed in the models.
This increased water vapor is caused by more heating caused by more CO2 in the air. There is nothing we can do about the increased water vapor, except reduce CO2 emissions.

No, the assumption that CO2 will somehow cause a big positive water vapor feedback is not based on any credible physical principle, and is disproved by the known negative feedbacks. It has simply been assumed to make climate models more sensitive to CO2.
Last edited by Truth To Power on 27 Nov 2021 19:36, edited 1 time in total.
#15199994
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power

That seems to be another unclear collection of sentence fragments.

No it doesn't. You have never met anyone who writes more clearly than I.
As I have told you repeatedly, it is not my job to parse those into an argument.

Just as it is not my job to make you willing to know facts or comprehend clear, simple, grammatical English.
You do not seem to have presented any evidence for your claim that CO2 has no effect on the overall heat of the Earth and its atmosphere.

Because that is not my claim. It is just something you decided you had better make up and falsely attribute to me because you cannot address anything I have actually said.
Please note that I have presented evidence that CO2 and other GHGs have significantly reduced heat loss to space.

No you haven't, as I already proved. This seems to be a pattern with you: you deny that I have presented evidence no matter how many times I present it, and claim that you have presented evidence no matter how many times I prove you haven't.
Your response about the thirty year lag is unclear. Are you arguing that the reason for thirty year lag is the same reason as the one month lag between July and August?

:roll: Are you or are you not willing to know the fact that turning your thermostat down from 25C to 23C will nevertheless warm your house up from 20C to 22C?

Are you or are you not willing to know the fact that it is the angle of the sun that causes July to be hotter than June, even though the sun is higher in June? Yes or no? Answer the question.
Your response about why solar activity is responsible for global warming is also unclear. Are you arguing that the reason the Earth getting warmer despite receiving less energy is the same reason as the one month lag between July and June? You really need to clarify your arguments.

Are you or are you not willing to know the fact that turning your thermostat down from 25C to 23C will nevertheless warm your house up from 20C to 22C?

Are you or are you not willing to know the fact that it is the angle of the sun that causes July to be hotter than June, even though the sun is higher in June? Yes or no? Answer the question.
Also, increasing the emission altitude means the Earth is getting warmer.

No it doesn't. It just means there is more GHG above the emission altitude.
This means heat has to travel further to get to space, which means heat is spending more time in the atmosphere, which means the atmosphere is warming up, and some of this heat is reflected back to Earth.

Yes, just as adding one cotton blanket to a stack of one cotton and 40 wool blankets will heat up all the blankets under the final cotton one. But will the guy in the bed notice any difference?

Answer the question.
#15199996
Truth To Power wrote:objectively false claims

There is no evidence for a statistical 'pause' in global mean surface temperature that allegedly ran counter to greenhouse warming expectations.

See Risbey et al. (2018) A fluctuation in surface temperature in historical context: reassessment and retrospective on the evidence.


:)
#15199997
Truth To Power wrote:I have some time to devote to schooling SA in atmospheric physics today:

That is more or less correct. Water vapor is in an equilibrium we can't significantly affect, including by CO2 emissions, because the negative feedbacks are too strong.

No, that's just false. The amount of CO2 in the air (pre-industrial) depended on the temperature, and so did water vapor. CO2 itself cannot affect water vapor more than microscopically unless it is far lower than it has ever been.

That CO2 controls temperature is an inaccurate model assumption, not a fact.

No, because there are ~40x as many H2O molecules in the air near the earth's surface than CO2 molecules. The difference in IR absorption per molecule is like the difference between a wool blanket and a cotton one: water vapor absorbs IR better than CO2, just as wool is a better insulator than cotton.

I ignore water vapor in the previous case because its GH effect is effectively constant and cannot be significantly affected by human activity, including CO2 emissions. I include it in the present case because it explains why Angstrom got the results he did, and why anyone repeating his experiment will get the same results.

No, it is absorbed and re-emitted over and over again, maybe thousands of times, before it makes its way high enough in the atmosphere to escape into outer space.

No, its effect on surface temperature is based on its absorption of IR radiation because that's the only way it can have an effect. The IR is immediately re-emitted in a random direction. The notion that CO2 has a significant effect on the earth's surface temperature is based on the fact that the re-emitted IR can go back down to the earth's surface. But as Angstrom showed, adding CO2 to standard atmospheric air has so little effect on IR absorption that the amount re-emitted back down to the surface is also barely affected.

See above. Only absorption matters because re-emission can only happen after absorption.

Nevertheless, that is what happens, and that is the relevant process. The lay reader may indeed find this difficult to understand, hence my blanket analogy.

No, we know it because the whole process is regulated by powerful negative feedbacks: the hotter something is, the faster it cools; the more CO2 there is in the air at the emission altitude, the more IR-excited molecules there are to emit IR to outer space; and the higher the emission altitude, the wider the angle that encompasses the overhead circular escape window.

You are learning from my explanations. Good.

Yes, it does, because the difference between almost all and very nearly all is very small.

It all does. In fact, a little more than that does, because the earth is constantly losing heat generated by radioactive decay in its interior, the friction of the tides converting its rotational energy into heat, etc.

No. The negative feedback takes over. If the earth gets even microscopically warmer, it immediately just radiates heat away faster.

The increase in water vapor caused by CO2 is a small fraction of what is assumed in the models.

No, the assumption that CO2 will somehow cause a big positive water vapor feedback is not based on any credible physical principle, and is disproved by the known negative feedbacks. It has simply been assumed to make climate models more sensitive to CO2.


Lurkers, I have shown you that the amount of heating of the air is about 0.0001 of a deg.C/day.
Above in the part I highlighted, TtP said, "But as Angstrom showed, adding CO2 to standard atmospheric air has so little effect on IR absorption that the amount re-emitted back down to the surface is also barely affected."
Lurkers, you be the judge, do you think that 120 years ago, Angstrom had the tools to measure the heating of the air in his experiment accurately enough to record the heat that amounts to 0.0001 deg.C/day? I don't believe that he imagined that the air in his experiment heating up mattered at all.
Lurkers, do you think that Angstrom was careful to be sure that the air in his experiment was isolated so that the tiny amount of heating would not escape into the glass walls of his experimental apparatus? I don't.
Lurkers, I don't believe that Angstrom's experiment proved anything. He did not have tools that were accurate enough to pick up the change in temp that was about 0.0001 deg.C. I'm being generous and assuming that he ran his experiment for 24 hours. If, for example, he only ran it for 24/10 =2.4 yours then the heating is less, just 0.00001 deg.C.

TtP entire argument hinges on Angstrom's experimental results. If you can't believe that he could measure temps accurately enough to tell the difference between 0.0001 deg.C change and no change, then you don't believe that his results prove what he though it proved.

Let me be clear. In Angstrom's experiment, the CO2 inside his glass container was absorbing IR heat/light. The IR was re-emitted. But, some was really stopped inside his container. It was so tiny an amount that a mercury thermometer could not measure it accurately. He would have had to use a very hot heat source for his IR heat/light and run the experiment for days on end, while keeping the air inside it thermally isolated from that hot heat source. That is, if the heat source could heat the air in the container some other way than by the IR light/heat being shined through it, then the result was invalid.

Above, TtP admits that the effect was tiny. I assert that it was so tiny that it would have been immeasurable. Note that, TtP has said that any student can repeat his experiment in a high school (IIRC, he said HS lab) science lab. Do HS science labs have thermometers accurate enough to measure temp changes of just 0.0001 deg.C?
.
#15200000
Truth To Power wrote:No it doesn't. You have never met anyone who writes more clearly than I.

Just as it is not my job to make you willing to know facts or comprehend clear, simple, grammatical English.

Because that is not my claim. It is just something you decided you had better make up and falsely attribute to me because you cannot address anything I have actually said.

No you haven't, as I already proved. This seems to be a pattern with you: you deny that I have presented evidence no matter how many times I present it, and claim that you have presented evidence no matter how many times I prove you haven't.


Note how none of this is about climate change.

:roll: Are you or are you not willing to know the fact that turning your thermostat down from 25C to 23C will nevertheless warm your house up from 20C to 22C?

Are you or are you not willing to know the fact that it is the angle of the sun that causes July to be hotter than June, even though the sun is higher in June? Yes or no? Answer the question.

Are you or are you not willing to know the fact that turning your thermostat down from 25C to 23C will nevertheless warm your house up from 20C to 22C?

Are you or are you not willing to know the fact that it is the angle of the sun that causes July to be hotter than June, even though the sun is higher in June? Yes or no? Answer the question.

Yes, just as adding one cotton blanket to a stack of one cotton and 40 wool blankets will heat up all the blankets under the final cotton one. But will the guy in the bed notice any difference?

Answer the question.


This is not an argument or a rebuttal.

Clarify your statements.

…. It just means there is more GHG above the emission altitude.


Yes, which insulates the levels below and warms up the Earth, its surface temperature, adn the atmosphere.

We call this “global warming”.
#15200006
ingliz wrote:There is no evidence for a statistical 'pause' in global mean surface temperature that allegedly ran counter to greenhouse warming expectations.

See Risbey et al. (2018) A fluctuation in surface temperature in historical context: reassessment and retrospective on the evidence.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

One of the "authors" of that "paper" is Naomi Oreskes, a historian and anti-fossil-fuel hysteria monger with no actual relevant scientific expertise. The paper contrives all sorts of rationalizations for why a visually obvious pause in warming mustn't have happened after all.
  • 1
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 43
The Wuhan virus—how are we doing?

When Gates dies he'll go back to being IT legend […]

Kamala Harris was a good choice for VP. That he wa[…]

The video cannot be played, and it's likely false,[…]

I am talking about experts and doctors silenced b[…]