A pocket guide to climate change or the basics of the science made easy

This is a denial of science, specifically the laws of thermodynamics. Heat (aka "the flow of thermal energy") cannot be slowed or trapped.

This is a denial of Statistical Mathematics, and mentioning that is not a "hand wave". Statistical Mathematics requires the use of raw data (ie, cooked data is not allowed). It also requires that biases be removed from data, that data be selected by randN, normalized by paired randR, that a variance be declared and justified, and that a margin of error calculation be performed. "Climate scientists" and "government agencies" are not following any of this, nor are they above science and mathematics.

Sure I did.

 

Certainly. I will do so by making reference to the two most popular arguments that the Church of Global Warming (CGW) makes...

The Magick Blanket Argument: Here, CGW members argue along the lines of "a blanket keeps us warm, therefore CO2 keeps us warm". There are several issues with this argumentation. One issue is that blankets do not keep us warm. Try putting a blanket over a rock sometime and see if the rock gets warm. Thus, this is a false equivalence fallacy (in this case, attempting to equate a thermal energy source [humans] with a non-thermal energy source [rocks, soil, water, etc]).

Another issue is a second false equivalence fallacy (attempting to equate "heat" with "thermal energy"). Heat is simply the flow of thermal energy. Heat cannot be slowed nor trapped. It works like a current in a river works. Heat only occurs wherever there is a difference in temperature (akin to a difference in altitude for a river) and where there is some form of coupling (akin to a path for the river to flow in). The greater the difference in temperature, the greater the heat (akin to a fast flowing river). The better the coupling is between the two regions, the greater the heat (akin to a wide river moving more water than a narrow river). Thus, if the difference in temperature is reduced, or if the coupling is reduced, then the less heat there is.

A blanket works by reducing heat. It acts as a coupling between ourselves and the colder outside air. A greenhouse works in a similar way. A greenhouse uses clear walls so that sunlight can heat the greenhouse and all its contents, yet it also reduces heat by limiting convection to the outside air (the same decoupling that a blanket does). Here, there are pockets of trapped air (underneath the blanket and inside of the greenhouse).

CO2, on the other hand, does not trap air, nor does it insulate anything any more than air already does. It conducts heat quite well. The open atmosphere has convection. This gets into the third false equivalence being made by the CGW (attempting to equate a closed convective system (a greenhouse) with an open convective system (the atmosphere)).

What CGW members ultimately argue for here is a "magick blanket" (ie, a "one-way insulator"). Heat can supposedly flow into Earth's atmosphere just fine, but due to some mysterious form of magick, it cannot flow out of Earth's atmosphere in the same manner. Apparently CO2 does not stop heat from entering; it only stops heat from escaping. This denies thermodynamics because this [1] attempts to create energy out of nothing by ignoring the dissipation of energy, [2] attempts to decrease entropy by warming the surface while cooling the upper air, and denies the stefan boltzmann law because it [3] attempts to increase temperature while decreasing radiance ("trapping heat"). The SB Law states that these two things are directly proportional (ie both must increase or decrease simultaneously).

The Magick Bouncing Photon Argument: Here, CGW members deny the same laws of science for the same reasons by arguing that roughly half of photons of IR light that are emitted from the surface get absorbed by CO2, then are re-emitted to the surface, then are re-emitted from the surface, then re-emitted by CO2, ad infinitum (all the while, the sun keeps adding in MORE photons that supposedly behave in this manner). This is supposedly making the surface warmer while cooling the upper air (a denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics as mentioned earlier). This denies the 1st LoT as well as the SB Law for the same reasons mentioned above.

What actually happens is a continuous process of the sun heating the surface and the surface heating the air. The air cannot in turn heat the surface again (ie, heat "flowing backwards"). Additionally, it is not possible for lower frequency light (emitted from a CO2 molecule) to heat something of a higher energy state (such as the Earth's surface). This gets into Planck's Law, another law of science which CGW members love to ignore. Heat cannot flow "uphill". It can only flow from hot to cold. That would be from the sun, to the surface, to the atmosphere. Heat cannot in turn flow from the atmosphere to the surface again.

I have already cited my sources to you. They are as follows:

The Laws of Thermodynamics themselves.
The Stefan Boltzmann law itself.
Planck's Law itself.
Mathematics itself (specifically Statistical Mathematics and data requirements for statistical analyses).

 

Correct, they aren't. They are performing pure guesswork.

Yup. It's all about power and control.

I've already presented it to you.

 

Yes there is.

To define "climate change" as a "change in the state of the climate" is NOT circular???? That's saying that "climate change" IS "climate change".

To define "global warming" as "a gradual increase in global surface temperature" is NOT circular?? That's saying that "global warming" IS "global warming".

For each definition, there is no reference being made outside of itself. This denies logic. Definitions cannot be circular.

 

1) It is true that the warming of the surface of the Earth by gases that absorb infrared radiation is very different from the way that a greenhouse warms the air and that the term "greenhouse gas" when
applied to the atmosphere is a misnomer. From Wikipedia:
"Greenhouse effect" is actually a misnomer since heating in the usual greenhouse is due to the reduction of convection, while the "greenhouse effect" works by preventing absorbed heat from leaving the structure through radiative transfer.

2) Your "Magick Bouncing Photon Argument" does not represent the argument made by climate scientists. Climate scientists do not claim that roughly half of the photons of IR light coming from the
Earth's surface get absorbed by CO2. Most of the photons emitted from the Earth's surface within a narrow band centered around wavelength's of 15 micrometers are absorbed by CO2. One-half of the
photons absorbed by CO2 are emitted away from the surface of the Earth and the other one-half are emitted towards the surface of the Earth because the direction is random. Most of the photons that
are emitted towards the surface of the Earth are absorbed by the surface and a small percentage are reflected upwards where they can be absorbed again by CO2 molecules. The surface warms because
of this back radiation and the temperature of the surface rises in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The increased radiation coming from the surface of the Earth in response to this CO2
back radiation represents the entire blackbody spectrum for the Earth and not the absorption band of the atmospheric CO2 molecules. So this is not a bouncing photon argument. The greenhouse effect warms
both the surface of the Earth and the lower portion of the atmosphere (troposphere).

3) The net heat flow is from the surface of the Earth to the atmosphere so there is no violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The Earth's surface has a high emissivity and is close to a blackbody. Its absorbance is equal to its emissivity so it will absorb the vast majority of photons emitted by atmospheric CO2 that are radiated downward. The Earth's surface is not at a higher energy state, whatever
that means, than the photons emitted by atmospheric CO2. The Earth's surface is at some specific temperature and there is a blackbody spectrum associated with that temperature. The photon is at some particular energy and there is a wavelength associated with that energy that lies within the spectrum of radiation emitted by the Earth. Heat can flow from cold object to a warm object in a closed system
as long as there is more heat flowing in the opposite direction and that is what is happening with the greenhouse effect. Heat does not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a warm object.

From wikipedia "second law of thermodynamics - Claussius statement":

The German scientist Rudolf Clausius laid the foundation for the second law of thermodynamics in 1850 by examining the relation between heat transfer and work.[35] His formulation of the second law, which was published in German in 1854, is known as the Clausius statement:

Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.[36]

The statement by Clausius uses the concept of 'passage of heat'. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means 'net transfer of energy as heat', and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other.

Heat cannot spontaneously flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system, which is evident from ordinary experience of refrigeration, for example. In a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external agent, the refrigeration system.

 

The greenhouse effect warms the surface of the Earth without violating conservation of energy because the total amount of energy radiated back to space is the same with an atmosphere
as it is without an atmosphere. Without an atmosphere, the Earth's surface would average 255 degrees K. Currently the average surface temperature of the Earth is 288 degrees K.
As we can see from the diagram below of the Earth-atmosphere system observed from space, carbon dioxide emits radiation between wavenumbers 540 and 800 at a lower
temperature (225K) than other regions. Ozone also emits at a lower temperature, wavenumber 1150. The equivalent radiation emitted back to space is the area under the curve
which is identical to an Earth with no atmosphere. It is the fact that greenhouse gases radiate energy at a lower temperature and therefore the flux is reduced that explains why
the Earth's surface must increase in order to restore the energy balance.

 

Argumentation via Wikipedia summarily discarded on sight. I do not accept Wikipedia as a source of anything, and Wikipedia is not the theories of science themselves.

I specifically said "CO2" since that is the most vilified atmospheric gas. Insert whatever magick gas you wish and my argument remains the same.

Actually, only some of the photons emitted from Earth's surface are absorbed by CO2. Many of them are not within the particular wavelengths that are able to be absorbed by CO2.

This I agree with. They are indeed emitted in all directions. That doesn't mean, however, that the photons emitted towards Earth's surface get absorbed by Earth's surface, as Planck's Law tells us.

Wrong. None of them get absorbed by Earth's surface. If the photon emitted is not of sufficient energy to elevate a body's energy state to a higher energy state, then that photon will not be absorbed. It will instead be reflected/refracted/transparent, ... "Energy state" meaning the amount of thermal energy associated with a particular black body. See Planck's Law.

No, this theory violates the SB Law. It is not possible to increase the temperature of Earth's surface while decreasing the radiance of Earth's surface. This theory also violates the 2nd LoT, as this is an attempt to decrease entropy (ie, warming the surface while cooling the upper atmosphere). See the SB Law and the 2nd LoT.

Paradox. You cannot simultaneously increase and decrease radiation. You cannot acknowledge radiation (when convenient) while completely ignoring radiation (when convenient).

Yes, it is. You are attempting to trap photons inside the Earth's atmosphere. You are attempting to trap heat. You are only letting about half of the photons escape, while making the other half into the "magick bouncing photons". This denies the SB Law, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and Planck's Law.

Not possible. Heat does not flow "uphill". Entropy cannot decrease. See the 2nd LoT.

There is no such thing as a "net flow" of heat. See the 2nd LoT.

Already addressed earlier.

Yes, it is. I define "energy state" earlier in this response. Heat flows from the sun to the surface to the atmosphere. It does not flow backwards. It does not flow from the atmosphere to the surface, and it does not flow from the surface to the sun. A photon of a lower energy state cannot be absorbed by a body of a higher energy state. See Planck's Law.

So you admit that you don't know what that temperature is?

How do you know if you don't even know the temperature of Earth?

You continue to completely deny the 2nd LoT.

Paradox. This is what you're attempting to argue. You must clear your paradoxes to return to rational argumentation.

Wikipedia summarily discarded on sight.

There is no "net transfer" of heat.

Correct. In fact, precisely correct. BUT, a paradox on your part, as you've been arguing that it CAN do so when relating to the CGW religion.

The laws of science speak for themselves here.

 

This whole post is making up numbers (randU Fallacy) and denying science. Thus, it is dismissed on the account of a fallacy, as well as having addressed the science issues in other posts.

 

Do you put a coat on when you go outside in snowy weather?

As I explained, solar radiation that heats Earth is a different wavelength than the heat radiated from earth. Our atmosphere with greenhouse gasses is better at reflecting the longer wavelengths of heat radiated by Earth than it is in reflecting the sun's radiation.

Thus more greenhouse gasses mean more warming.

Claiming climatologists the world over are using bad methodology is something that you would need to show by mrore than your claims.

You need to cite a weriously sound source if you want to attempt something so wild as to condemn the methodologies of all those scientists working in the field of climatology. Let's remember that the breadth of the sciences involved, the number of science organizations and the fact that it involves work done around the world makes your job ridiculously difficult.

And, I'd point out that results from NASA, NOAA and other organizations that do climatology absoltely do present error bars on their results. So, right off the bat you lose on that one.

 

AGAIN, the "magic" is that the solar radiation comes as shorter waves than the heat that attempts to radiate to space from Earth.

Since greenhouse gases slow the shorter waves much more than they slow the longer waves, Earth warms.

Ive never seen a reputable science site talk about bouncing photons as a source of waming.

The laws of thermodynamics (as opposed to the totall science of thermodynamics) are true for a closd system.

But, Earth isn't a closed system. Earth lives in a balance between solar radiation and heat loss to space.

Saying the names of laws is NOT an argument. You actually have to find a credible organization of science that uses your argument. You have NOT cited anything like that.

You want people to believe that YOU are applying the science better than all the climatologists in the entire world - thus proveing them all wrong!!

Sorry, but that is a bit much.

 

Do you complain when someone says "temperature change" because of you considering that "circular"?

"Change" isn't circular. Change can usually be measured.

Scientists tend to use "Climate change", because the effects of a gradually warming (or cooling) Earth will not be experienced identically in all localities.

"Global warming" was concocted as a means of more clearly communicating to the press, which had a problem understanding "climate change". It refers to the increasing average temperature of Earth.

 

Again, the second law of thermodynamics concerns a closed system. Earth is not a closed system. Earth exists in very cold space and is proximate to a star.

You aren't just discarding wikipedia, you're discarding climatology in general, suggesting that you know better than all the scientists in climate related disciplines from around the world.

That's a ridiculous claim that you have totally failed to support.

 

The CO2 hypothesis is not falsifiable. With an unproven and unprovable hypothesis taken as fact any and every weather event is now being blamed on it even though the IPCC gives this a low confidence level. As we speak the model average for surface temperature is twice that of observed science and more than twice for the lower troposphere where, according to the hypothesis, warming is supposed to show first.

Even worse, of the Relative Concentration Pathway (RCP) models the worst case least likely model RCP8.5 is used as business as usual for all the hysteria you see. In some cases RCP8.5 is required by law for planning.

 

Yes. The coat reduces heat. It reduces the coupling between myself and the colder outside air.

As I explained, you cannot trap heat. The SB Law integrates Planck's Law over all wavelengths. You simply cannot increase the surface temperature while decreasing the surface radiation. There's no way around it.

Don't take my word for it. Look at the laws of science for yourself. Look at statistical mathematics for yourself.

I already have. You keep ignoring my sources. They are, once again:
Laws of Thermodynamics.
Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
Planck's Law.
Statistical Mathematics.

None of those things are science nor mathematics.

"Error bars" are not margin of error calculations. Also, a margin of error calculation must be calculated from the possible variance of the data, which needs to be both declared and justified.

 

You're referring to heat as if it is thermal energy... It is not.

Again, the SB Law integrates ALL wavelengths. It is not possible to increase temperature while decreasing radiation. You cannot slow or trap heat.

Then you haven't looked at the websites of which you speak. They argue that photons behave in that manner. They do not. Also, a "reputable science site" is not science itself.

Yes, Earth IS a closed system. The Sun+Earth+Space system is ALSO a closed system. It depends on where you want to draw the boundaries of the system.

Correct. You were asking for my sources, so I cited you my sources. Those laws ARE my sources. I never claimed that my citing of those sources was argumentation of any kind. I've made my arguments (based off of those sources) here and elsewhere.

I have no need to. A "credible organization of science" is NOT science itself. What I am citing to you (the laws of science) IS science. False Authority Fallacy.

They aren't applying the science. They are outright denying the science. They are also outright denying logic and mathematics.

 

No, because the definition of "temperature change" is not circular.

Correct. However, climate is not a quantifiable value.

No, they use "climate change" because they can then blame literally ANY weather event on our "evil carbon sins".

Nothing is clearer about "global warming". It is a circularly defined buzzword just like "climate change" is. It is utterly meaningless.

I don't blame them. Circularly defined buzzwords are utterly meaningless.

Circular definition. Utterly meaningless.

It is not possible to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth. We do not have near enough thermometers. We have not removed location and time biases either.

 

Correct.

Yes it is. So is the Sun+Earth+Space system.

Irrelevant.

Correct.

I do.

I have supported it numerous times already.

 

I see. This couldn't be put in a thesis sentence, a couple short paragraphs, and a summary of a couple of sentences to make a point.

REJECT IT.

 

Once again ...

Earth's coat, its atmosphere, allows solar radiation through while slowing the longer waves of heat radiation from departing.

You are NOT citing ANYTHING regarding climatology. Mention a collection of well known laws is NOT a citation concerning how they are being applied.

You need to cite trustable sources in climatology.

Pretending that you know better is not good enough - even if you actually do know better than all the climatologists in the entire world, like you claim.

 

Science here means experimental science.

And, you absolutely do need to cite that. Otherwise, you're just still claiming you know better than all the climatologists in the entire world.

Earth is not a closed system.

And, claiming that heat can't be slowed from departing is the same as suggesting that there is no reason to wear a coat.

 

Climate certainly is quantifiable in that there are several measurements repeatedly taken over a period of time that in combination characterize climate - rainfall, heat days, etc. Those who care about agriculture study this stuff in detail. NASA has satelites that contribute data to a wide range of groups who study US agriculture, making reccommendations based data from various sources.

When one or more of those measures changes, climate has changed.

You may consider that meaningless, but there is no question that US agriculture sees it as crucial. And, as our planet warms, it causes change in climate that affects agriculture (among other things).

Please cite a source that argues that we don't know Earth's temperature accurately enough to know that it is warming.

I'd point out that we don't exclusively rely on Earth based thermometers. So, any argument against our ability to know Earth's average temp has to take the full range of methodologies into account.

 

Most photons emitted by carbon dioxide in a direction towards the Earth's surface get absorbed by the Earth's surface because the absorption spectrum of the Earth's surface is the same as the

emission spectrum. That follows from Kirchoff's law of thermal radiation: for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

71% of the surface of the earth is covered with water and water has an emissivity of 0.96 which is equal to the absorptivity (an emissivity of 1 corresponds to maximum absorptivity)
ice has an absorptivity of 0.97
snow has an absorptivity between 0.8 and 0.9
trees also have high absorptivities

 

It is not possible to slow or trap heat. You are continuing to deny thermodynamics and stefan-boltzmann.

 

Do you ever wear a coat? If so, why?

Do you ever cite experimental scientists who study climate?

 

No it's not. You are attempting a false equivalence here.

With your coat example, you are speaking of a thermal energy source (person) and a coupling reducer (the coat) between that thermal energy source and the outside air. Heat flows from hot to cold. It flows from the person to the outside air. There is trapped air between the person and the coat. That coupling reducer allows the person to keep warm easier.

With your Earth example, you are speaking of an emitting body (the surface) with no coupling reducer between the emitting body and the outside air. The Earth is not a greenhouse. CO2 does not trap air in any way/shape/form like your coat example does. Heat flows from hot to cold. It flows from the surface, to the outside air, and out into space. CO2 is not slowing or trapping heat in any way.