As Climate Worsens, a Cascade of Tipping Points Looms

To claim that there has been a long term cooling trend in the last 5000 years is absurd. It ignores the previous nine warmings including the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods. The Mann hockey stick sent a tingle up climate alarmists leg is because it eliminated the Medieval Warm Period. Those papers were a bogus.

 

Clearly. You are just parroting the words of fellow believers.

I do not accept them as facts, thus, so long as I am involved in the conversation, they are no longer facts, but arguments.

Bulverism Fallacy. You need to address the arguments being made, not the person who is making them.

Correct, it does. AGW argumentation tends to violate the laws of thermodynamics, the stefan boltzmann law, planck's law, and other laws of science from time to time, but those are the most common laws of science being denied by the Church of Global Warming.

Evidence is not a proof. What evidence are you speaking of?

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That is not my definition of science, by the way. That definition results from the philosophy of Karl Popper. I simply believe it to be correct.

No, I simply reject the notion that a theory becomes a theory of science simply because it has been "peer-reviewed".

Nope. Models are not science. Science, rather, is about falsifiable theories.

Merriam Webster does not define science. False Authority Fallacy.

 

file:///C:/Users/preferred%20cutomer/Downloads/100737%20(2).pdf

This paper, "Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate" by W.F.J. Evans and others, is a study conducted near Peterborough, Ontario that measured the greenhouse effect of CO2, N2O,
CH4, O3, H2O, HNO3, CFC11, and CFC12 and then compared the measured results with simulated fluxes using FASCOD3 atmospheric transmission code.What they measured were downward radiation
surface fluxes (greenhouse effect) for the wintertime in 1996 and at later times. There is a close agreement between the measured results and theory, confirming the greenhouse effect.

Where did the radiation, characteristic for the above mentioned molecules, come from if not from greenhouse gases? Yes, the cooler atmosphere can radiate downwards to a warmer earth without violating the second law of
thermodynamics.

A mean surface temperature for the earth can be calculated, neglecting the atmosphere, using the Stefan-Boltzmann law and is found to be about 33 degrees Celsius below the measured value.

When the greenhouse effect is added the to the earth, the earth's mean temperature agrees with what we measure. The theory is well understood and has been verified.

 

Models can be falsified.

 

That's BS. There is no proof that human CO2 emissions are responsible for the current warming period we are in.

 

OK, they are arguments based on measurements of the amount of ice loss for Antarctica, the Antarctica Peninsula, West Antarctica, and East Antarctica. Three

methods were used and they correlate well. The results established that Antarctica and the 3 portions of Antarctica all show accelerating amounts of ice melting.

Why should anyone doubt that this is happening?

 

... is a load of religious garbage which denies logic, science, and mathematics.

This denies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It is not possible (in an isolated system) for a cooler gas to heat a warmer surface.

Correlation is not causation. Simulations are not data.

Idk, therefore "greenhouse gases"?? Seriously?? That's strikingly similar to the old "idk, therefore God" argument, eh?

No it can't. The cooler atmosphere cannot heat the warmer surface. Heat ONLY flows from hot to cold, NOT from cold to hot. This article is outright denying science.

No it can't. We don't have near enough thermometers, and the ones we do have are not uniformly spaced nor simultaneously read by the same observer. A variance has not been declared, nor has a margin of error calculation been performed based on that variance.

Nope, the SB Law doesn't work either. We do not know the emissivity of Earth.

Made up numbers based on pure guesswork. There is no "measured value".

We haven't measured the temperature of the Earth... So what if made up numbers agree with made up numbers??

The theory is based on undefined buzzwords such as "global warming" and "climate change", thus denying logic. The theory ignores various laws of science (such as the laws of thermodynamics and the SB Law), thus denying science. The theory also ignores the axioms of statistical mathematics (such as requiring the use of raw data, selection by randN, pairing by randR, declaring variance, calculating margin of error, etc...), thus denying mathematics.

The theory is nothing more than a religion. Now, religions in and of themselves are perfectly fine and logically valid, however the Church of Global Warming is not valid, since most other religions do not require one to outright deny logic, science, and mathematics the way that this religion does.

 

Because Antarctica is gaining ice area.

 

Models are not falsifiable theories.

 

Because Antarctica ice area is actually increasing?

 

From the National Weather Service, Earth-Atmosphere Energy Balance https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/energy




100 units = the incoming solar radiation flux (the actual incoming flux is 340 watts per square metes so you can multiply all numbers by 3.4 to get the actual energy flux)

The data was measured by satellites and are estimates.

You can see that 104 units are absorbed by the atmosphere from the Earth's surface (right side) and 98 units are emitted by the atmosphere and absorbed by the Earth's

surface. The net energy flow is from the surface to the atmosphere and is equal to 116 - 98 = 18 units = 61 watts per square meter.

No violation of the second law of thermodynamics exists because the net energy flow is from a warmer portion of the system to a cooler portion of the system, both part

of an isolated system under analysis. 98 units of energy flow back and forth between the atmosphere and the earth's surface, both warming each other. The carbon dioxide

molecules in the atmosphere cannot decide to emit radiation only away from the Earth, they emit radiation equally in all directions.

Several Physicists write a paper refuting the false claim that the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law of thermoynamics.

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021797921005555X

COMMENT ON "FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS"

Abstract
In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.1 Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error. Their most significant errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth's surface and atmosphere. They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed. Further, by ignoring heat capacity and non-radiative heat flows, they claim that radiative balance requires that the surface cool by 100 K or more at night, an obvious absurdity induced by an unphysical assumption. This comment concentrates on these two major points, while also taking note of some of Gerlich and Tscheuschner's other errors and misunderstandings.



I previously presented evidence that the greenhouse effect had been measured near Ontario, Canada in the wintertime. with the measured and
simulated results in close agreement. year 1994 , some of the results shown, most significant

measured flux (watts/sq.meter)/ simulated Flux
CO2 26.0 / 24.8
CH4 0.85 / 0.80
N2O 1.06 / 0.99
O3 3.26 / 3.20
CFC11 0.14 / 0.12
CFC12 0.12 / 0.11

 

**Made up numbers. We do not know the emissivity of Earth.
**There is no such thing as "net flow" of heat. It only flows from hot to cold, never from cold to hot.

As for the rest of your post, I am not wasting my time refuting arguments that you copy/pasted from others. I expect my interlocutors to be able to form their own arguments.

 

what science are you referring to here? Should we translate your post as "factless, baseless, propaganda" for government autocracy?

 

I know, it may not have occurred to you that we have these things called "seasons" and that the planet's orientation to the sun creates this, but periodically, ice melt is caused because the ice is subjected to the sun in each hemisphere for unrelenting 24 hour periods of sunlight and then, it reverses causing the ice to both melt, and then be refrozen....

Satellite measurement of the total mass at both polls shows that the overall coverage is not statistically significantly different in the N Hemisphere over the duration of the amount of data collection, and that the S Hemisphere is experiencing a statistically signifiant in crease in the coverage there. Given the paucity of actual observed data and show short duration of collection, I conclude that there isn't any significant long term trending that is possible yet from these observations and that any attempt to make them is unwarranted at this time. But, if you're in need of future research funding from government organizations funding it, likely you'll have an opinion that resolves to the wishes of those granting the monies...

 

I didn't say net flow of heat because I knew that you would object, so I said net flow of energy. There is energy transferred in both directions, from earth's surface to the atmosphere and from the atmosphere
to the earth's surface. More energy is transferred, via photons, from the earth's surface to the atmosphere than in the opposite direction. The net energy flow is what matters and it is from a warm object
to a cooler object. In this case, the second law of thermodynamics is about the total entropy of a system in thermal equilibrium.

From Wikipedia, the 2nd law of thermodynamics:
:
Clausius statement[edit]
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.


Note, from the Clausius statement, there is some other change occurring at the same time and the colder body is the atmosphere and the warmer body is the earth's surface. Also, note that in thermodynamic discussions the passage of heat refers to the net transfer of energy as heat. The "other change' that is going on is the transfer of energy from a warmer body (Earth's surface) to a cooler body (atmosphere).
Note, that the Clausius statement does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other.

Those numbers in the diagram were not made up, they were measured.

The downward radiation to the earth from greenhouse gases been measured many times and agrees with theory.

 

I presented evidence gathered over 40 years, measured independently by 3 different techniques, that all show Antarctica losing mass and that it has been accelerating.

 

Antarctica losing six times more ice mass annually now than 40 years ago

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190114161150.htm

 

Here is another diagram of the Earth's energy budget from 2009. These are not made up numbers. Note that the atmosphere

absorbs 358.2 watts per square meter of energy flux from the Earth's surface which is more than the atmosphere radiates to the ground, 340.3 watts per square meter.






Earth's climate is largely determined by the planet's energy budget, i.e., the balance of incoming and outgoing radiation. It is measured by satellites and shown in W/m2.[1

Loeb et al., J. Clim 2009 & Trenberth et al, BAMS 2009

 

You (or whatever articles you decide to steal arguments from) can't wordsmith your way around it. Heat is simply the flow of thermal energy. That's all heat is. What you are talking about is heat, and heat only flows in one direction (from hot to cold). There is no "net flow".

Heat only flows from hot to cold, never the other way around. In this case, heat flows from the Earth's surface into the atmosphere. The atmosphere does not, in turn, re-heat the surface.

There is no "net flow". Heat only flows from hot to cold.

They were made up numbers.

Continued denial of the Laws of Thermodynamics...

** [Insert magick gas here] cannot heat Earth's surface, as heat does not flow from cold to hot in an isolated system (heat only flows from hot to cold). In other words, you are decreasing entropy. Entropy cannot decrease; it can only increase or stay the same.

** It would take additional energy to warm Earth's surface. Where is this additional energy coming from? (You cannot create energy out of nothing).

** You are also attempting to decrease the radiance of Earth (by "trapping heat") while simultaneously increasing the temperature of Earth (by claiming that the Earth is warming). This theory is a violation of the Stefan Boltzmann Law, as that law states that those two values are directly proportional to one another.

 

The atmosphere radiates 50% of its energy upwards, away from the earth, and 50% downwards. That is because the direction in which an individual CO2 molecule radiates is random.

The radiation that the atmosphere radiates downward towards the earth is always met by more radiation upwards from the surface to the atmosphere. Since the net flow of heat is from a

warmer body to a cooler body there is no violation of the 2nd law.


It does not take additional energy to warm the Earth's surface. As the Earth's surface gets warmer because of a more opaque atmosphere, the top of the atmosphere radiates less energy

away to space because the top of the atmosphere is getting cooler. Nearly all of the energy from the atmosphere that is radiated away into space occurs at the top of the atmosphere.

The energy must balance at both he top of the atmosphere and at the Earth's surface. One has to write simultaneous equations using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for the energy

balance at both the top of the atmosphere and at the Earth's surface. Solving that equation we can determine that our atmosphere, near the top will always be cooler, than the earth's surface.

The Wikipedia site, " Idealized Greenhouse Model", shows how this is mathematically derived using a simple model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model

In summary, the radiance of the Earth's surface increases with the temperature of the earth's surface by the fourth power of temperature, just as required by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, but

we use a separate equation for the surface of the earth. The top of the atmosphere requires the use of a different equation.

 

In other words, you are only allowing half of the photons to escape and are "trapping" the other half. Those other half are supposedly, according to this line of argumentation, "magick bouncing photons" which are emitted by the surface, absorbed by CO2, re-emitted back down to the surface for absorption, re-emitted and re-absorbed by CO2, ... ... ad infinitum. What this line of argumentation is suggesting is a perpetual motion machine of the second order.

Sure, a photon emitted by CO2 could travel back towards the surface, but that photon would not in any way/shape/form 'heat' the surface, since no photon will be absorbed by anything that already has more energy than the photon itself has (ie, Earth's surface). Such a photon will instead simply pass right through, or reflect/refract away. Are you going to deny Planck's Law in addition to the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Stefan Boltzmann Law?

** You cannot create energy out of nothing.
** You cannot trap light.
** You cannot trap thermal energy.
** Heat only flows from hot to cold, NEVER the other way around.
** Entropy always increases or stays the same; it NEVER decreases.
** Earth's surface CANNOT simultaneously decrease in radiation and increase in temperature.
** Photons emitted by bodies of lower energy states (ie, CO2 molecule) will NOT have sufficient energy to be absorbed by bodies of higher energy states (ie, Earth's surface).

You are outright denying various currently standing theories of science. Have you found a way to falsify them? If so, do share...

There is no such thing as "net flow" of heat. Heat only flows from hot to cold. You continue to deny the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics...

Yes it does. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are denying the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

See my first response of this reply. You continue to deny science.

No idea what you're on about here.

Models are not science. Summarily dismissed, as is your Wikipedia reference. I do not accept Wikipedia as a valid source of anything.

You are now in paradox.
[1] Some photons get "trapped", thus Earth's radiance is decreasing (as temperature is increasing).
[2] Earth's radiance is increasing (as temperature is increasing).

Which is it?

 

In a single layer model of the Earth's atmosphere, 50% of the photons captured by CO2 will re-emit infrared radiation back down towards the Earth's surface. Most of those photons will be absorbed by

the Earth's surface and a small percentage will be reflected. According to NASA:

The emissivity of most natural Earth surfaces is a unitless quantity and ranges between approximately 0.6 and 1.0, but surfaces with emissivities less than 0.85 are typically restricted to deserts and semi-arid areas. Vegetation, water and ice have high emissivities above 0.95 in the thermal infrared wavelength range.

The earth's surface is close to a perfect black body and the absorptivity must equal the emissivity for a body in thermal equilibrium according to Kirchoff's law. So, about 90% of the incident photons as

the result of back radiation will be absorbed by the Earth's surface. Those photons must heat the Earth's surface as a result of Planck's law of blackbody radiation and the Earth's surface warms and

emits more infrared, maintaining an energy balance at the Earth's surface. There is no perpetual motion machine.

With the addition of greenhouse gases, less energy is emitted back to space because the top of the atmosphere is at a higher elevation and cooler plus the atmospheric window is narrower. The amount of solar

radiation absorbed by the Earth's surface and atmosphere doesn't change. So the Earth's surface warms and emits more radiation in order to make up for that decline in emission coming from the top

of the atmosphere and the narrower atmospheric window that allows infrared radiation from the Earth to directly pass through the atmosphere to space. The atmospheric window is centered around

wavelengths of 10 micrometers. About 10% of the energy emitted by the Earth escapes through that window with the rest being absorbed by the atmosphere. The absorption band of carbon dioxide

widens as the concentration of carbon dioxide increases causing this window to narrow.




Atmospheric gases only absorb some wavelengths of energy but are transparent to others. The absorption patterns of water vapor (blue peaks) and carbon dioxide (pink peaks) overlap in some wavelengths. Carbon dioxide is not as strong a greenhouse gas as water vapor, but it absorbs energy in longer wavelengths (12–15 micrometers) that water vapor does not, partially closing the "window" through which heat radiated by the surface would normally escape to space. (Illustration NASA, Robert Rohde)[24]…

NASA, Robert Rohde - http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page7.php NASA Earth Observatory

 

See: https://skepticalscience.net/pdf/re...modynamics-greenhouse-theory-intermediate.pdf for graphs of the Earth's thermal radiation spectrum as seen from space ,20 km,

and from the ground plus an explanation for the shape of the curves.

Observing the greenhouse effect in action (from skepticalscience)

Observing the greenhouse effect in action The simplest direct observation of the greenhouse effect at work is atmospheric backradiation. Any substance that absorbs thermal radiation will also emit thermal radiation; this is a consequence of Kirchoff's law. The atmosphere absorbs thermal radiation because of the trace greenhouse gases, and also emits thermal radiation, in all directions. This thermal emission can be measured from the surface and also from space. The surface of the Earth actually receives in total more radiation from the atmosphere than it does from the Sun. The net flow of radiant heat is still upwards from the surface to the atmosphere, because the upwards thermal emission is greater than the downwards atmospheric backradiation. This is a simple consequence of the second law of thermodynamics. The magnitude of the net flow of heat is the difference between the radiant energy flowing in each direction. Because of the backradiation, the surface temperature and the upwards thermal radiation is much larger than if there was no greenhouse effect.

 

^^^ copy/pasting is not holding a discussion, nor does it show any willingness to learn.

I think we're done here, as you didn't address any of what I said nor did you clear your paradox. You are arguing irrationally at this point.

 

You are now in paradox.
[1] Some photons get "trapped", thus Earth's radiance is decreasing (as temperature is increasing).
[2] Earth's radiance is increasing (as temperature is increasing).


As greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase the, emissivity and radiance of the lower portion of the atmosphere also increase. That is because the atmosphere can be modelled as a grey body

An atmosphere with no greenhouse gases would be transparent to infrared radiation and the emissivity and radiance would be zero. The emissivity and radiance at the top of the atmosphere for carbon dioxide will

decrease as atmospheric carbon dioxide increases. The top of the atmosphere is where carbon dioxide radiates energy away from the earth. So, what is happening at in the lower layers of the atmosphere is

irrelevant for carbon dioxide's role in removing energy from the earth-atmosphere system. Increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere correlate with a decreasing ability of the earth-atmosphere system to

radiate energy to space.

The failure of this individual to understand what is happening relates to not understanding that there are multiple Stefan_Boltzmann equations, one for the surface of the earth, and one for

each layer of the atmosphere. If we have a 3-layer atmosphere model, then we have 4 equations and we can solve for a mean temperature of the earth. We can calculate a value that is very close to what we

observe. The Earth's surface and the atmosphere are part of a system and one must understand simultaneously what is going on in every part of the system in order to understand the greenhouse effect.

Also, all science is based on models. They are an idealized representation of reality. Engineers and scientists construct models all the time. The earth-atmosphere system is far too complicated to understand

with precision from simple models. However, a simple one-layer model of the atmosphere is sufficient to demonstrate that greenhouse gases can warm the earth's surface.

No physical laws are violated and think what must be true if some law of physics was violated. That would meant that every textbook written on atmospheric science would be wrong and that no scientist

would have been smart enough to find this error, except for a few rare individuals who wrote a non-peer reviewed article that was instantly shot down. I already mentioned that the greenhouse effect

has been measured many times and the earth's surface would be covered with ice if it wasn't true.