"Whether we like it or not" - Page 36 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

### "Whether we like it or not"

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.

### Re: "Whether we like it or not"#15200643

By Truth To Power
#15200643
Steve_American wrote:1] Lurkers, did you follow how TtP got from a "change in albedo from ~.3 to ~.9 in glaciated areas" to "A 1% increase in IR absorption would therefore equate to an albedo difference of ~0.006"? I could see no connection between those 2 statements that are back-to-back in his reply.

Albedo is inversely proportional to absorption of visible-spectrum energy by the earth's surface. GHGs increase temperature by absorbing and then re-radiating that energy when it is re-radiated from the surface as IR.
2] Lurkers, TtP seems to totally fail to grok that changes in IR absorption cause a tiny amount in cooling or heating each day for centuries. This goes on until a new equilibrium temp is reached. So, a tiny change can cause a large temp change over many decades.

No, because negative feedbacks force a new equilibrium very quickly.
3] Lurkers, TtP above wrote, "A 1% increase in IR absorption is insignificant because". I have not seen any attempt by TtP to support his claim that a 1% change in absorption is insignificant.

I explained it.
. . . This is my attempt to show that he is wrong using his own words. TtP asserts that the 280 ppm (IIRC) of CO2 in the air in 1850, will absorb all the IR light/heat in a few hundred meters.

In combination with the water vapor that makes up ~1%-4% of surface air, depending on various local factors. And the water vapor is far more important both because it absorbs IR better than CO2 and because it is far more abundant in surface air.
This is a lot of absorption. Yet TtP admits that IR light/heat still escapes into space, when he says energy in = energy out. Then he asserts that a 1% increase in the absorption of IR light/heat is insignificant.

Think of the blankets. The first blanket absorbs all the heat from your body, but then it transmits half of it to the next blanket, which absorbs it, and half back to your body, which is why you feel warmer. But then the second blanket transmits half of the heat it has absorbed from the first blanket to the third blanket and half back to the first blanket, and the first blanket transmits half of that back down to your body and half back out to the second blanket, etc., etc., for all 41 blankets. Each blanket blocks all the heat from the one below it, but then transmits half of that heat outward and half back in; in the end, each blanket ends up a little cooler than the one below it. Adding one cotton blanket to top of the stack has a large effect on the former top blanket, but almost no effect at the bottom.
. . . An analogy might be wealth, income, and spending. Here wealth = the energy in the air measured as its temp. Income is the rate at which the IR energy is absorbed. And spending = the rate at which the energy of that sample of air loses its energy by reradiating IR light/heat. OK, here we are talking about what effect changing the rate of change in the income has on wealth. That is, does a 1% increase in the rate of change in income have a significant effect on the accumulated wealth of the person? We know that there is a time lag between increasing the CO2 ppm and the temp of the air. That is the air takes time to increase its temp. You know this because when you cook and boil water, turning up the fire under the pot does not immediately make it boil. This means that the temp of our air below slowly heats up, and because the amount of IR being reradiated depends on the temp of the air the amount of IT reradiated lags behind the amount of IR absorbed. We need to assume that she was spending the same as her income, because before in 1850 the temp was not increasing much due to the CO2 in the air.

You are ignoring the negative feedbacks. When something warms up, it automatically radiates more energy, establishing a new equilibrium. In fact, the amount radiated is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature, so the negative feedback is extremely strong. By contrast, people don't automatically spend any more when they have more income.
. . . Suppose, the person's income was $100K/yr. Her wealth was$0, and her spending was $100K. this means her wealth was not changing because she spent all her income. [In 1850 we are assuming that the temp was constant. We do this because we need to eliminate all other reasons why the temp will change to see the effect a 1% change will have if all other factors are equal.] No, the temperature would be constant at equilibrium no matter how much CO2 there was in the air. The heating effect is transient. . . . OK, her income was$100K. A 1% increase would make her earn $101K/yr. There is a lag in her increased spending. I'll assume for illustration here, that her spending increases by 0.06%, so 1.006 x 100k =$100.6k.
. . . Now, in the 1st year her wealth will increase by $101K - 100.6K =$0.4K. If her wealth is assumed to be 0 just for simplicity, then her wealth is now $0.4K. . . . In the next year her income was$101K and it again increases by 1% so now her income is 101 x 1.01 = $102.01k. This year we'll illustrate by assuming her spending also increases by 0.06%, so she spends 1.006 x 100.6k = 101.20K. So, her wealth is now 0.4K + 102.01k - 101.20k = 1.21k In each following year we multiply by the same 1% income increase and the same .6% spending increase, we get her wealth increased to$2.426k. After 7 years her wealth is now $11.564k. If we extend this to 100 years we can see that it is significant. Again, you are assuming away the negative feedbacks that force equilibrium. I redid the spread sheet and assumed that all her increased income was spent, but with a 1 year lag. In this case her wealth after 7 years was$12.365k. So, it was larger.

But there is no limit in your analogy! If you keep it going, she just gets richer and richer. That doesn't happen with temperature because it self-corrects to reach equilibrium.
We all know that TtP will reject this analogy. I hope the Lurkers can grok the point, that is "changing the rate of something is never insignificant if the time is long enough.

The physical system that determines a planet's equilibrium surface temperature includes strong negative feedbacks that your model does not have.
Before, I have shown that adding just 0.0001 deg.C each day over 3 decades adds just about 1 deg.C to the temp. Obviously, adding more per day makes the 1 deg.C increase happen sooner.

You haven't understood the concept of thermal equilibrium and how it is reached.
TtP might have thought that adding just 0.0001 deg.C to the temp per day was insignificant. But, you can see that it isn't.

Temperature doesn't just add and add and add, as assets do. The hotter something is, the faster it cools.
Also, because of the time lag of temp increase, if we stopped adding CO2 to the air today, by removing all of what we add, the temp would keep increasing.

Yes, but a new equilibrium would be reached fairly quickly. Temperature would not just keep increasing indefinitely based on a given added amount of CO2.
And worse, this would add more water vapor to the air, which is a much stronger GHG, so it would heat the Earth more & faster.

The amount of additional water vapor is so small, and its IR absorption already so thoroughly saturated, that it can't possibly have any significant effect. AGW climate models all assume absurdly exaggerated positive water vapor feedback because it is the only way to make them sensitive enough to CO2 to justify anti-fossil fuel hysteria. But there is no plausible physical mechanism behind such assumptions.
In this wonderfully rosy case, it would take decades for the temp to reach the new equilibrium temp, and it might be a 2 or 3 deg.C increase on top of our current 1.15 deg.C increase from 1850 temps.

Such sensitivity to CO2 is ridiculously exaggerated, and impossible given the earth's climate history.
This will be very bad. Even a 1 deg.C increase from now is very bad.

No, it is actually good -- comparable to the Holocene Optimum 6-8Kya.

### Re: "Whether we like it or not"#15200652

By Pants-of-dog
#15200652
Truth To Power wrote:…IR absorption already so thoroughly saturated, that it can't possibly have any significant effect.

### Re: "Whether we like it or not"#15200692

By Truth To Power
#15200692

No it hasn't. All you proved is that you don't have a clue what IR saturation even is.

### Re: "Whether we like it or not"#15200705

By Steve_American
#15200705
Truth To Power wrote:Albedo is inversely proportional to absorption of visible-spectrum energy by the earth's surface. GHGs increase temperature by absorbing and then re-radiating that energy when it is re-radiated from the surface as IR.

No, because negative feedbacks force a new equilibrium very quickly.

I explained it.

In combination with the water vapor that makes up ~1%-4% of surface air, depending on various local factors. And the water vapor is far more important both because it absorbs IR better than CO2 and because it is far more abundant in surface air.

Think of the blankets. The first blanket absorbs all the heat from your body, but then it transmits half of it to the next blanket, which absorbs it, and half back to your body, which is why you feel warmer. But then the second blanket transmits half of the heat it has absorbed from the first blanket to the third blanket and half back to the first blanket, and the first blanket transmits half of that back down to your body and half back out to the second blanket, etc., etc., for all 41 blankets. Each blanket blocks all the heat from the one below it, but then transmits half of that heat outward and half back in; in the end, each blanket ends up a little cooler than the one below it. Adding one cotton blanket to top of the stack has a large effect on the former top blanket, but almost no effect at the bottom.

You are ignoring the negative feedbacks. When something warms up, it automatically radiates more energy, establishing a new equilibrium. In fact,[highlight=yellow] the amount radiated is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature[/highlight], so the negative feedback is extremely strong. By contrast, people don't automatically spend any more when they have more income.

No, the temperature would be constant at equilibrium no matter how much CO2 there was in the air. The heating effect is transient.

Again, you are assuming away the negative feedbacks that force equilibrium.

But there is no limit in your analogy! If you keep it going, she just gets richer and richer. That doesn't happen with temperature because it self-corrects to reach equilibrium.

The physical system that determines aplanet's equilibrium surface temperature includes strong negative feedbacks that your model does not have.

You haven't understood the concept of thermal equilibrium and how it is reached.

Temperature doesn't just add and add and add, as assets do. The hotter something is, the faster it cools.

Yes, but a new equilibrium would be reached fairly quickly. Temperature would not just keep increasing indefinitely based on a given added amount of CO2.

The amount of additional water vapor is so small, and its IR absorption already so thoroughly saturated, that it can't possibly have any significant effect. AGW climate models all assume absurdly exaggerated positive water vapor feedback because it is the only way to make them sensitive enough to CO2 to justify anti-fossil fuel hysteria. But there is no plausible physical mechanism behind such assumptions.

Such sensitivity to CO2 is ridiculously exaggerated, and impossible given the earth's climate history.

No, it is actually good -- comparable to the Holocene Optimum 6-8Kya.

Lurkers, TtP's argument here is based on his unsupported claim that the negative feedbacks heat the air and this makes the CO2 and H2O molecules reradiate a lot more energy.

OK, TtP didn't provide the equation for this 4th power thing.
I don't know the equation, but TtP didn't give one when he made his claim.
I should find the equation, but ...

If the equation is =>
Amount of IR energy radiated = a constant [here I'll assume it is 0.000001] X the temp in deg. K to the 4th power.
[BTW--- note that this constant needs to convert deg. K into watts (1 watt = 1 g X meter^2 X sec^−3. So, it is necessary to have a lot of units listed so the 2 sides of the equation have the same units.]
Room temp is about 300 deg.K. Changing the temp each day by 0.00002 deg. K increases the temp from 300 to 300.00002 deg. K. My calculator can handle such tiny fractions. S0 =>

Changing the temp from 300 to 301 deg. K. 300^4 = 8,100,000,000 and 301^4 = 8,208,412,000.
So, 8,208,412,000 minus 8,100,000,000 = 108,412,000, which is the change in this factor of the equation.

Now 8,208,412,000 / 108,412,000 = 8,100,000 which is the change in radiant energy term in the equation.

Now we need to multiply that by 0.0000001. When we do that the change is 0.81, which is not much.

As you can see changing the amount of energy radiated by each deg. K of temp change, can still be a tiny number no matter that the temp is raised to the 4th power.

Without the actual equation, TtP's claim is meaningless. It is just word salad that convinces those how don't know better. Yes, it sounds convincing, but it is incomplete without the full equation.

Now, OTOH, real climate scientists say that there is a time lag in the heating of the Earth.
Also you know that in cooking, the water in a pan heats up on a stove until it reaches a point at which the heat lost equals the heat the stove adds. If this temp is above boiling then the temp of the water doesn't change but the steal carries away a lot of heat.
. . . If the temp doesn't reach boiling then evaporation will be the main way the heat is lost. The water will slowly evaporate away. And the temp of the water will stay about at this equilibrium temp.
. . . I think you also know that it will take a lot of time for the water in the pot to reach the equilibrium temp.
TtP asserts that it takes 1 day and scientists say it takes months to decades.
I admit that I don't know, but it may be months or it may be decades.

The scientist's statements that I'm going on are like, "If we stop adding CO2 to the air completely right now, them the temp of the Earth and the air above it will continue to heat up for decades before it reaches the new equilibrium temp, which will be about 2-3 deg. hotter than now."

So, Lurkers, the climate change debate is life and death. You are betting (depending on your age), your life, your children's or your grandchildren's lives when you decide who to believe.
When TtP asserts that the scientists from 1931 to 1956 are wrong and Angstrom in 1900 was right, he seems to be saying there was a conspiracy starting in 1931. He will say he isn't, but if there isn't such a conspiracy way back then, then on what basis can he say they are wrong? His simple assertions should not convince you over the work of thousands of scientists, some working in 1931 who say Angstrom was wrong.
.

### Re: "Whether we like it or not"#15200707

By Steve_American
#15200707
@Truth to Power,

https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/ ... t-climate/

In the 1st sentence just below, it says that the papers were published in 1956. I will never believe that in 1956 these was a giant conspiracy to falsely push claims that climate change is a problem. Instead I will believe that starting abut 1975 there has been a huge conspiracy to deny that climate change is a problem.

I'll quote some of this one. =>
This paper says,
"Gilbert Plass was then the person who finally solved the problem. In 1956 he published results from his study (Plass, 1956) where he had used latest laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of greenhouse gases and had determined the radiation flux in the primary absorption band of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with a theoretical model (up to the height of 75 km). Among other things, his model included the pressure and Doppler broadening of absorption lines and the overlaps of spectral lines. According to his results, doubling of carbon dioxide concentration would cause 3.6°C warming to the surface of the Earth. In addition to this result, Plass also gave answers to all arguments that were thought to show that carbon dioxide wouldn’t cause warming to the surface of the Earth. Plass (1956b) wrote a popular article on the subject and the article happens currently to be freely accessible for everyone. In this article, there are answers to above-mentioned arguments. First the overlapping of the water vapour and carbon dioxide:"

Plass wrote:
The fact that water vapor absorbs to some extent in the same spectral interval as carbon dioxide is the basis for the usual objection to the carbon dioxide theory. According to this argument the water vapor absorption is so large that there would be virtually no change in the outgoing radiation if the carbon dioxide concentration should change. However, this conclusion was based on early, very approximate treatments of the very complex problem of the calculation of the infrared flux in the atmosphere. Recent and more accurate calculations that take into account the detailed structure of the spectra of these two gases show that they are relatively independent of one another in their influence on the infrared absorption. There are two main reasons for this result: (1) there is no correlation between the frequencies of the spectral lines for carbon dioxide and water vapor and so the lines do not often overlap because of nearly coincident positions for the spectral lines; (2) the fractional concentration of water vapor falls off very rapidly with height whereas carbon dioxide is nearly uniformly distributed. Because of this last fact, even if the water vapor absorption were larger than that of carbon dioxide in a certain spectral interval at the surface of the Earth, at only a short distance above the ground the carbon dioxide absorption would be considerably larger than that of the water vapor.

The paper continued, "And then the saturation of the carbon dioxide absorption band:"

Plass wrote:
One further objection has been raised to the carbon dioxide theory: the atmosphere is completely opaque at the center of the carbon dioxide band and therefore there is no change in the absorption as the carbon dioxide amount varies. This is entirely true for a spectral interval about one micron wide on either side of the center of the carbon dioxide band. However, the argument neglects the hundreds of spectral lines from carbon dioxide that are outside this interval of complete absorption. The change in absorption for a given variation in carbon dioxide amount is greatest for a spectral interval that is only partially opaque; the temperature variation at the surface of the Earth is determined by the change in absorption of such intervals.

So the change in carbon dioxide affects the temperature because with closer inspection the absorption of carbon dioxide is not overlapping with the absorption of water vapour and water vapour is absorbing more strongly only in the lower atmosphere, and the saturation of certain parts of carbon dioxide absorption bands are already taken into consideration in the calculations which still result in the warming of the Earth’s surface when more carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere.

The paper continued, "This problem was solved in 1956, over 50 years ago." [Now, 65 years ago.]

I just can't understand how TtP can honestly keep saying that Angstrom was right and all the scientists since who have shown he was wrong are part of a giant conspiracy to push on the world that climate change is a problem. How could there have been a conspiracy to do this in 1931 or 1956?
.

### Re: "Whether we like it or not"#15200719

By late
#15200719
Steve_American wrote:
I just can't understand how TtP can honestly keep saying that Angstrom was right and all the scientists since who have shown he was wrong are part of a giant conspiracy to push on the world that climate change is a problem. How could there have been a conspiracy to do this in 1931 or 1956?

Of course you can.

### Re: "Whether we like it or not"#15200728

By Steve_American
#15200728
late wrote:Of course you can.

Did you, late, miss the word "honestly"?

### Re: "Whether we like it or not"#15200738

By late
#15200738
Steve_American wrote:
Did you, late, miss the word "honestly"?

Have you really not noticed that he's a paid shill?

### Re: "Whether we like it or not"#15200751

By Pants-of-dog
#15200751
Truth To Power wrote:No it hasn't. All you proved is that you don't have a clue what IR saturation even is.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Studies, experiments, papers, and articles that refute Angstrom:

Harries, J., Brindley, H., Sagoo, P. et al. Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. Nature 410, 355–357 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/35066553

Comparison of Spectrally Resolved Outgoing Longwave Radiation over the Tropical Pacific between 1970 and 2003 Using IRIS, IMG, and AIRS
J. A. Griggs1 and J. E. Harries
Space and Atmospheric Physics, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
Print Publication: 01 Aug 2007
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI4204.1
Page(s): 3982–4001

Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth's infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006.
Chen, C., Harries, J., Brindley, H., & Ringer, M. (2007). Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth's infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006. Retrieved October, 13, 2009.

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate
W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin

Radiative forcing - measured at Earth's surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect
Rolf Philipona, Bruno Dürr, Christoph Marty, Atsumu Ohmura, Martin Wild
First published: 06 February 2004 https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018765

The Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere of the Earth
E. O. Hulburt
Phys. Rev. 38, 1876 – Published 15 November 1931

GILBERT N. PLASS
American Scientist
Vol. 44, No. 3 (JULY 1956), pp. 302-316

I will gladly explain how any of these refute the CO2 saturation claim, if anyone asks politely.

———————-

You ignored all of this.

### Re: "Whether we like it or not"#15200786

By Truth To Power
#15200786
Steve_American wrote:Lurkers, TtP's argument here is based on his unsupported claim that the negative feedbacks heat the air and this makes the CO2 and H2O molecules reradiate a lot more energy.

No, the negative feedback IS the fact that hotter things radiate a lot more energy.
OK, TtP didn't provide the equation for this 4th power thing.
I don't know the equation, but TtP didn't give one when he made his claim.
I should find the equation, but ...

It's the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, which every person who has any knowledge of radiative energy transfer knows like the back of his hand. You will now prove that you are not one of them:
Changing the temp from 300 to 301 deg. K. 300^4 = 8,100,000,000 and 301^4 = 8,208,412,000.
So, 8,208,412,000 minus 8,100,000,000 = 108,412,000, which is the change in this factor of the equation.

So far, so good. You have shown that a 1K increase in room-temperature material increases its radiative heat loss by ~1.3%.
Now 8,208,412,000 / 108,412,000 = 8,100,000 which is the change in radiant energy term in the equation.

Ah, no. You're out by several orders of magnitude. Not surprisingly.
Now we need to multiply that by 0.0000001. When we do that the change is 0.81, which is not much.

As you can see changing the amount of energy radiated by each deg. K of temp change, can still be a tiny number no matter that the temp is raised to the 4th power.

See above.
Now, OTOH, real climate scientists say that there is a time lag in the heating of the Earth.

There are many long time lags involved: the heating and cooling of the oceans, the oceans' uptake and release of CO2, glacial melting and formation, etc.
Also you know that in cooking, the water in a pan heats up on a stove until it reaches a point at which the heat lost equals the heat the stove adds. If this temp is above boiling then the temp of the water doesn't change but the steal carries away a lot of heat.

Another miracle of irrelevancy.
. . . If the temp doesn't reach boiling then evaporation will be the main way the heat is lost. The water will slowly evaporate away. And the temp of the water will stay about at this equilibrium temp.

That depends on how much heat is reaching the water, whether the pot has a lid on it, etc.
. . . I think you also know that it will take a lot of time for the water in the pot to reach the equilibrium temp.

I don't think "A watched pot never boils," cuts it as climate science.

For a pot of water on a stove, equilibrium is actually reached quite quickly: in practical situations, there is enough variability in conditions that the temperature begins to fluctuate more or less randomly around the equilibrium. At that point, it is a quibble to say equilibrium has not been reached.
TtP asserts that it takes 1 day and scientists say it takes months to decades.

It takes centuries, at least. That is one reason claims that post-LIA heating must have been due mainly to CO2 forcing are nonscience.
The scientist's statements that I'm going on are like, "If we stop adding CO2 to the air completely right now, them the temp of the Earth and the air above it will continue to heat up for decades before it reaches the new equilibrium temp, which will be about 2-3 deg. hotter than now."

That is a claim, not an observation or even a credible analysis.
So, Lurkers, the climate change debate is life and death. You are betting (depending on your age), your life, your children's or your grandchildren's lives when you decide who to believe.

No, you are just betting your self-image as a person who can tell science from nonscience.
When TtP asserts that the scientists from 1931 to 1956 are wrong and Angstrom in 1900 was right, he seems to be saying there was a conspiracy starting in 1931.

No, the errors began long before that.
He will say he isn't, but if there isn't such a conspiracy way back then, then on what basis can he say they are wrong?

Scientists are just people, and people can make mistakes without conspiring to lie. But the climategate emails showed there has been a conspiracy to lie.
His simple assertions should not convince you over the work of thousands of scientists, some working in 1931 who say Angstrom was wrong.

They can say Angstrom was wrong all they like. What they can't do is show, by actual physical experiment, that adding CO2 to surface atmospheric air makes any significant difference to its IR absorption properties.

### Re: "Whether we like it or not"#15200788

By Truth To Power
#15200788
Pants-of-dog wrote:You ignored all of this.

Unlike you and the other AGW scaremongers here, I do have a job (no, it is not educating scientific ignorami on the Internet) as well as other responsibilities that take up most of my time. I certainly don't have time, within a day or two, to analyze the errors in multiple scientific papers.

### Re: "Whether we like it or not"#15200798

By Pants-of-dog
#15200798
Truth To Power wrote:Unlike you and the other AGW scaremongers here, I do have a job (no, it is not educating scientific ignorami on the Internet) as well as other responsibilities that take up most of my time. I certainly don't have time, within a day or two, to analyze the errors in multiple scientific papers.

You seem to be implying that unpaid work does not require much time. I can assure you that this implicit assumption is often incorrect.

If it makes things easier, the first few show the observed reduction in energy emissions into space because of GHGs.

The last two are direct refutations of the Angstrom experiment.

If you want me to discuss a particular one, please ask nicely.

### Re: "Whether we like it or not"#15200855

By Steve_American
#15200855
Truth To Power wrote:No, the negative feedback IS the fact that hotter things radiate a lot more energy.

It's the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, which every person who has any knowledge of radiative energy transfer knows like the back of his hand. You will now prove that you are not one of them:

So far, so good. You have shown that a 1K increase in room-temperature material increases its radiative heat loss by ~1.3%.

Ah, no. You're out by several orders of magnitude. Not surprisingly.

See above.

There are many long time lags involved: the heating and cooling of the oceans, the oceans' uptake and release of CO2, glacial melting and formation, etc.

Another miracle of irrelevancy.

That depends on how much heat is reaching the water, whether the pot has a lid on it, etc.

I don't think "A watched pot never boils," cuts it as climate science.

For a pot of water on a stove, equilibrium is actually reached quite quickly: in practical situations, there is enough variability in conditions that the temperature begins to fluctuate more or less randomly around the equilibrium. At that point, it is a quibble to say equilibrium has not been reached.

It takes centuries, at least. That is one reason claims that post-LIA heating must have been due mainly to CO2 forcing are nonscience.

That is a claim, not an observation or even a credible analysis.

No, you are just betting your self-image as a person who can tell science from nonscience.

No, the errors began long before that.

Scientists are just people, and people can make mistakes without conspiring to lie. But the climategate emails showed there has been a conspiracy to lie.

They can say Angstrom was wrong all they like. What they can't do is show, by actual physical experiment, that adding CO2 to surface atmospheric air makes any significant difference to its IR absorption properties.

OK, my reply is please note the part I highlighted below. The number is 10 to the -8 power.
This makes σ = 0.0000000567 ... This is less than (about 1 / 200th) of what I guessed. My guess was 0.000001 .

Everything he said after the is just so much word salad based on his incorrect thinking about how fast the air reaches equilibrium temp. He was off by a factor of at least a factor of 10,000 leaving a factor of 10,000 if I got his thinking wrong.

It also shows that TtP really doesn't understand what he is talking about.

Wikipedia wrote: The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time {\displaystyle j^{\star }} j^{\star} (also known as the black-body radiant emittance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T:

{\displaystyle j^{\star }=\sigma T^{4}.} j^{\star} = \sigma T^{4}.
The constant of proportionality σ, called the Stefan–Boltzmann constant, is derived from other known physical constants. Since 2019, the value of the constant is

{\displaystyle \sigma ={\frac {2\pi ^{5}k^{4}}{15c^{2}h^{3}}}=5.670374\ldots \times 10^{-8}\,\mathrm {W\,m^{-2}\,K^{-4}} ,}{\displaystyle \sigma ={\frac {2\pi ^{5}k^{4}}{15c^{2}h^{3}}}=5.670374\ldots \times 10^{-8}\,\mathrm {W\,m^{-2}\,K^{-4}} ,}
where k is the Boltzmann constant, h is Planck's constant, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.

Translated into English this is ---
The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time j* (also known as the black-body radiant emittance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T:

. . j*= σ X T^4, where X=times and T=temp in deg. Kelvin.

The constant of proportionality σ, called the Stefan–Boltzmann constant, is derived from other known physical constants. Since 2019, the value of the constant is =

. . σ = 2 X pi ^5 X k^4 / 15 X c^2 X h^3 == 5.670374...X 10^-8 {the units are Watts meters^2 k^-4}

where k is the Boltzmann constant, h is Planck's constant, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.

### Re: "Whether we like it or not"#15200923

By ingliz
#15200923
@Truth To Power

"temperature gradients ... more extreme weather"

A blizzard warning for normally balmy Hawaii and an absence of snow in mountainous Colorado were among a series of bizarre weather forecasts and events in the US as December began.

Meteorologists attributed the latest batch of record-shattering weather extremes to a stuck jet stream and the effects of a La Niña weather pattern from cooling Pacific waters.

### Re: "Whether we like it or not"#15200996

By Truth To Power
#15200996
Pants-of-dog wrote:You seem to be implying that unpaid work does not require much time. I can assure you that this implicit assumption is often incorrect.

No, I am stating that my unpaid work here requires too much time.
If it makes things easier, the first few show the observed reduction in energy emissions into space because of GHGs.

If it makes things easier, no, they do not. All they show is that the emission spectrum reflects the GHG composition at the emission altitude.
The last two are direct refutations of the Angstrom experiment.

No they aren't. In neither case have the authors added CO2 to standard surface atmospheric air and found a significant difference in IR absorption.
If you want me to discuss a particular one, please ask nicely.

Given the complete absence of interesting, informative, or even accurate content in your previous explanations, above, I think I'll pass.

### Re: "Whether we like it or not"#15200997

By Truth To Power
#15200997
Steve_American wrote:OK, my reply is please note the part I highlighted below. The number is 10 to the -8 power.
This makes σ = 0.0000000567 ... This is less than (about 1 / 200th) of what I guessed. My guess was 0.000001 .

Everything he said after the is just so much word salad based on his incorrect thinking about how fast the air reaches equilibrium temp. He was off by a factor of at least a factor of 10,000 leaving a factor of 10,000 if I got his thinking wrong.

It also shows that TtP really doesn't understand what he is talking about.

Beneath response.

### Re: "Whether we like it or not"#15201002

By Pants-of-dog
#15201002
Truth To Power wrote:No, I am stating that my unpaid work here requires too much time.

If it makes things easier, no, they do not. All they show is that the emission spectrum reflects the GHG composition at the emission altitude.

…..which shows that adding CO2 still has an impact, even if the air at ground level is saturated with IR, which disproves the claim that Angstrom and his experiment show that adding CO2 has no impact on climate.

No they aren't. In neither case have the authors added CO2 to standard surface atmospheric air and found a significant difference in IR absorption.

Given the complete absence of interesting, informative, or even accurate content in your previous explanations, above, I think I'll pass.

Again, they showed that Angstrom and his claim are not useful for understanding climate change.

### Re: "Whether we like it or not"#15201060

By Steve_American
#15201060
Truth To Power wrote:Beneath response.

Lurkers, if TtP refuses to respond, then does that mean that I win?

Do you agree with him that my response was beneath needing a response?

It seemed to me to be totally fair. He laughed out load at my claim that the exponent of sigma was 10^-5,
and in fact it turned out to be 10^-8. So, sigma was actually 200 times smaller than I guessed. Yet he used the 'laughed out load' emoji in response. And now refuses to respond.
.

### Re: "Whether we like it or not"#15201118

By Truth To Power
#15201118
Pants-of-dog wrote:…..which shows that adding CO2 still has an impact,

Sure. Just not on surface temperature or climate.
even if the air at ground level is saturated with IR,

You again cruelly expose the fact that you do not even know what IR saturation is.
which disproves the claim that Angstrom and his experiment show that adding CO2 has no impact on climate.

It shows the impact is minimal, as Angstrom proved, and CO2 is therefore not a principal cause of climate variation.
Again, they showed that Angstrom and his claim are not useful for understanding climate change.

Wrong again. In seeking to understand climate change, it is very useful to know that CO2 cannot be a significant factor.

### Re: "Whether we like it or not"#15201128

By Pants-of-dog
#15201128
Truth To Power wrote:Sure. Just not on surface temperature or climate.

You again cruelly expose the fact that you do not even know what IR saturation is.

It shows the impact is minimal, as Angstrom proved, and CO2 is therefore not a principal cause of climate variation.

Wrong again. In seeking to understand climate change, it is very useful to know that CO2 cannot be a significant factor.

Again, none of this is clear.

I started reading it, and the grammar was so twisted, I knew it would be too much trouble trying to figure out what it meant.

Please rewrite this into a clear rebuttal.
• 1
• 34
• 35
• 36
• 37
• 38
• 43
###### Proof of just how economically illiterate many Americans are...

I'm not buying what you're selling. You're full o[…]