When delay becomes denial

how many rain drops will fall per hour on a moonlit night in Miami...how many clouds per sq meter over new jersey in january? ...how does energy disappear? ...oh wait! I know the answer to the last one, it's magic!

 

Data Reveal Florida Keys Sea Surface Temperatures Haven’t Warmed in 80+ Years*

 

...you haven't explained the most basic question of CC denial, for your denial to be true energy must dissappear...this is first grade stuff like 1+1=?....we go nowhere without you first explaining the magical disappearance of energy, how can you input energy into a system and have no reaction?.. until you explain that (you can't) you're not capable of comprehending anything more complex...

I think you know very well it isn't possible, but you have a political agenda that doesn't allow you to accept the obvious...

 

These are basic questions.

How much energy is in the system?
Where does each energy source originate?
What percentage energy does man put into the system?
How much energy is released?

Don't worry, I know you will not be able to come up with those answers because no one can. No one knows.

Of course that is the problem with true belief, facts are not necessary.

 

New paper finds climate of tropical Atlantic is not driven by greenhouse gas forcing

Dr. Bill Gray and other skeptics have pointed out, the climate heat transfer sequence is: Sun heats the oceans, the Sun [plus possibly lunar tidal forcing] drive ocean oscillations, and ocean oscillations then drive the climate. Longwave IR from greenhouse gases cannot penetrate or heat the oceans, and warming of the atmosphere cannot heat the oceans because heat rises and the oceans have 1000 times greater heat capacity than the atmosphere.

 

No, they are not. They are trick questions, intended to distract attention from the real issues, but totally unrelated to AGW.

You ask: "What percentage energy does man put into the system?"

If we're talking about Earth's climate "system" ('cause you're deliberately un-specific) then man puts very little "energy" into the system. The sun is the source of almost all of the energy in the climate system, plus some gravitational tidal energy from the moon. What mankind HAS done is to drastically increase the levels of a heat trapping gas that is retaining more of the sun's energy within the Earth's atmosphere, oceans, iceseets, and land surfaces.

 

So basic knowledge of what the system is comprised of is a trick question? Only from a warmer.

 

Scientists understand quite a bit about the Earth's climate systems and the energy flows involved. That knowledge has almost nothing to do with your clueless, poorly framed questions. You understand nothing about the science involved in this issue but you imagine you can "stump" the rational people with fuzzy, imprecise questions that have no clear answers or any relation to the actual scientific understanding of Earth's climate systems. LOL.

 

Feigned ignorance of a basic law of physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed...except in denierworld, there it can disappear as if by magic.

Your arguments/denials are reaching ludicrous levels...

 

deflection, slight of hand, distraction, smoke and mirrors...

 

Whereas you post meaningless drivel and think information overload of dozens of sites, without pointing to any specific paragraph is good.

Cant you at least paraphrase any of it in your own words?

Why do you always parrot others?

 

Wow!

You actually explained something in your own words for once, and for the most part, in my opinion, correctly!

Please continue!

I will disagree with "drastically," but thank-you for actually using your own words instead of a "linky."

 

Hmmm, so the energy involved isn't important then eh? LOL

 

You mean you don't know where heat goes? Space, the final frontier.

 

So explain to me this, if the CO2 absorbs and emits IR, how can it emit more than it takes in? And btw, it emits in all directions so actually backflow to the surface is only one quarter. So explain to me how it can emit heat? It can only emit what it absorbs and that is the same waves as off of the surface. Unless of course you believe there is a cumbustion engine in the CO2, how can it make it more warm.

 

Mostly just your usual clueless drivel demonstrating your ignorance about the science involved....but with one, probably unintentional, exception.

CO2 doesn't "emit more than it takes in". That's just silly nonsense.

CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb some of the longwave infrared radiation coming from the Earth and then either re-emit a photon in a random direction or transfer heat (molecular vibrational energy) to the surrounding gas molecules, warming the air. More than half of the re-emitted photons stay within the atmosphere or return to Earth, not the "only one quarter" you ignorantly imagine.

You say: "It can only emit what it absorbs and that is the same waves as off of the surface", which is probably the most accurate (but poorly written) thing you've ever posted on this forum. The Earth is heated by the sun and then emits longwave infrared radiation ("waves off of the surface"), some of which is absorbed by the greenhouse gas molecules, which then usually re-emit a photon of longwave infrared radiation with the same energy ("only emit what it absorbed"). Do you imagine you have a point here?

All of the radiant thermal energy is originally coming from the sun, the Earth absorbs that energy and then has to radiate pretty much all of it away into space to maintain an energy balance. The increased CO2 levels that mankind has created are retaining more of that thermal energy inside the atmosphere and not letting it escape into space, so every day the Earth surface's total heat content increases a bit as more energy comes in from the sun than the amount that is able to leave the Earth into space.

 

what absorbs and emits more 120PPM or 280PPM?

 

The energy does matter. However, he is correct in pointing out the energy we add is miniscule in the whole of the energy involved.

Energy at the levels being debated is not created by the anthropogenic forces looked at. Land use, released CO2, etc. change how the earths energy system responds by changing evaporation, albedo, radiative properties, etc.

 

The more greenhouse gases there are in the atmosphere, the more upwelling infrared radiation gets absorbed, and the more infrared radiation gets re-emitted. Are you really THAT clueless?

 

So, which greenhouse gas has the largest affect?

 

It doesn't emit more. When it maintains a constant temperature, it emits out as much as it absorbs. Half of it is emitted up, half down, at all angles.

Maybe it helps to think of greenhouse gasses as an insulation, blanket, etc. We wear light clothing in the summer because we don't need to retain our body heat. In the winter however, we put more layers of clothing on to retain heat.

Greenhouse gasses don't create heat. The simply slow its escape outside the earth system. The heat is already there from the sun. We just let less go up, because the more CO2 molecules in the air, the more there are to intercept the longwave and redirect half of that downward. With no greenhouse gasses, and it would all go up, and out of the earth system. The earth would equalize at about -18 C or 0 F, for a global temperature.

With more of an insulating effect, the earth physical heat has to rise higher to overcome the resistance of escape.

If you think of it from a simplistic atmospheric window point of view, if I have a window that allows 40% of the atmospheric heat to escape and the sun is adding 240 W/m^2, then the earth will not be equalized in temperature until we have 250% of that value radiating from the earths atmosphere.

240 x 2.5 = 600 W/m^2

40% of 600 = 240...

If I reduce my atmospheric window to 39%, then we have:

39% of 600 = 234.

We are now out of balance. The earth temperature will increase until we are once again, emitting 240 W/m^2 into space. We have to substantially increase to 615.38 W/m^2. To do this, the earth will rise in temperature until equilibrium is again achieved.

615.38/600 = 1.0256

Temperature to radiative calculations are a fourth power function.

The fourth root of 1.0256 is 1.0063

Average earth temperature = 288 K. (273.15 K = 0 Celsius)

288 x 1.0063 = 289.83

289.83 - 288 = 1.83 degrees of increased temperature when equalization is achieved.

 

Well, first off...

affect
— verb (used with object)
* to act on; produce an effect or change in: Cold weather affected the crops.
* to impress the mind or move the feelings of: The music affected him deeply.

effect
— noun
* something that is produced by an agency or cause; result; consequence: Exposure to the sun had the effect of toughening his skin.
* power to produce results; efficacy; force; validity; influence: His protest had no effect.

Second, that question may be way too complex for you.

Water vapor has the greatest effect on warming if considered in isolation, apart from the effects of the other greenhouse gases.

Considered as part of the whole atmosphere, CO2 has the greatest effect on temperatures because the temperature increases it produces act to increase the amount of water vapor in the air, which amplifies the effects of the CO2. Water vapor only lasts a few days in the atmosphere before precipitating out while CO2 accumulates and keeps building up and then stays in the air for centuries.

 

That is the hypothesis yet no net warming for 15+ years.

 

Endlessly repeating an already debunked denier cult propaganda meme won't magically make it come true. It just makes you look silly.

Global warming continues with no slow down
By: Dr. Jeff Masters
March 27, 2013