I'm Still Looking for Global Warming Science[W:523]

[Grand Mal]

Do you trust NASA scientists to read thermometers? Or does this, "Our atmosphere provides a most powerful refrigeration effect." mean that you don't believe it when someone else tells you that a thermometer at high elevation, above the atmosphere, reads colder than one at sea level?
'Cause here's what NASA's thermometers have been telling them...



http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

 

[IB daMann]

longview, thanks again for the response. I enjoyed your post. I have a few comments in response.

I think you are off in one respect, the average temperature of the moon is about -30 C,

But you would have to admit that we have no way of verifying that, correct?

I think the average for an earth without an atmosphere is supposed to be -18C.

I don't believe it. It sounds like someone snookered you with an inappropriate use of the Stephan-Boltzmann equation.

I do not think there is much argument that some type of greenhouse effect exists,

I don't think there is any science whatsoever that any type of "greenhouse effect" exists. All the attempts to describe such, and I have heard many, involve violations of physics.

I can write up several mathematical proofs showing that 0=1. Of course the puzzle would be to find the hidden error. All "Greenhouse Effect" models are like that, i.e. they all have a physics mistake. If you ask twenty different people to explain the "greenhouse effect" you'll get twenty different models, the differences being where the physics violation is hidden.

There is no debate amongst Catholic bishops about the existence of God.
There is no debate amongst the Global Warming believers about the existence of the "greenhouse effect."

 

[IB daMann]

"Climate" is Not in the Body of Science

Only a computer programmer would view something like climate so simplistically.

Climate is not defined anywhere in the body of science. There is no scientific way to "view" it. Perhaps your religious view of "climate" is a rather complicated one?

 

[IB daMann]

Gimme the Raw, Unprocessed, Unfudged Data.

Do you trust NASA scientists to read thermometers?

I find it next to impossible to trust an agency/organization/institution that won't publish its raw, unprocessed, unfudged data but instead only publishes conclusions that are to be accepted without question. That's what religions do.

You may have a different standard for what you readily believe.

 

[Grand Mal]

longview, thanks again for the response. I enjoyed your post. I have a few comments in response.


But you would have to admit that we have no way of verifying that, correct?


I don't believe it. It sounds like someone snookered you with an inappropriate use of the Stephan-Boltzmann equation.


I don't think there is any science whatsoever that any type of "greenhouse effect" exists. All the attempts to describe such, and I have heard many, involve violations of physics.

I can write up several mathematical proofs showing that 0=1. Of course the puzzle would be to find the hidden error. All "Greenhouse Effect" models are like that, i.e. they all have a physics mistake. If you ask twenty different people to explain the "greenhouse effect" you'll get twenty different models, the differences being where the physics violation is hidden.

There is no debate amongst Catholic bishops about the existence of God.
There is no debate amongst the Global Warming believers about the existence of the "greenhouse effect."

And the atmosphere "provides a most powerful refrigeration effect".

 

[Grand Mal]

Re: Gimme the Raw, Unprocessed, Unfudged Data.

I find it next to impossible to trust an agency/organization/institution that won't publish its raw, unprocessed, unfudged data but instead only publishes conclusions that are to be accepted without question. That's what religions do.

You may have a different standard for what you readily believe.

That's not at all what NASA does. You can go as deep and as raw into their data as you've a mind to.
Where do you get information you trust? Got a link?

 

[IB daMann]

The specific spectrum absorbed is part of that which the earth emits, but the incoming direct solar insolation is of primarily shorter wavelengths. (shortwave-IR and visible mostly) This means that CO2 would have a non-zero "greenhouse effect" that is the crux of the issue.

Absolutely not.

First, the sun emits radiation at all frequencies. The specific frequency signature that excites CO2 varies with the temperature of the CO2. But that's the same with all substances.

Second, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is quite clear. Energy can change forms but energy is never created, never destroyed. You probably learned that as a kid. What you are describing is CO2 creating energy by changing its form. False. That can't happen. A more technical explanation of the 1st LoT is that energy can only be increased by work being performed. The sun is the only factor performing work in this system. Any presumption that energy is being created in the atmosphere is bogus from the start.

 

[IB daMann]

Re: Gimme the Raw, Unprocessed, Unfudged Data.

That's not at all what NASA does.

Have you ever worked for/with NASA?

You can go as deep and as raw into their data as you've a mind to.

No, I can't. Maybe you can but I can't get a complete raw, unprocessed, unfudged data set from them. Everything they release to the public is processed, presumably towards the conclusion they want the public to accept.

Where do you get information you trust? Got a link?

I was hoping you might have it.

 

[IB daMann]

Here, I'm Earthling, but it doesn't surprise me that you didn't notice.

I noticed, but I like "Earthling-1." I'm used to it. I presume you are too.

 

[IB daMann]

dead wrong with respect to the point

Oh wow! Now that you put it that way, how could I have ever been so mistaken?

 

[Grand Mal]

Re: Gimme the Raw, Unprocessed, Unfudged Data.

Have you ever worked for/with NASA?


No, I can't. Maybe you can but I can't get a complete raw, unprocessed, unfudged data set from them. Everything they release to the public is processed, presumably towards the conclusion they want the public to accept.


I was hoping you might have it.

You're empty handed, laddybuck. You've got nothing but one-trick sarcasm and contradiction.
Sorry I wasted my time. Yours doesn't matter.

 

[longview]

longview, thanks again for the response. I enjoyed your post. I have a few comments in response.


But you would have to admit that we have no way of verifying that, correct?


I don't believe it. It sounds like someone snookered you with an inappropriate use of the Stephan-Boltzmann equation.


I don't think there is any science whatsoever that any type of "greenhouse effect" exists. All the attempts to describe such, and I have heard many, involve violations of physics.

I can write up several mathematical proofs showing that 0=1. Of course the puzzle would be to find the hidden error. All "Greenhouse Effect" models are like that, i.e. they all have a physics mistake. If you ask twenty different people to explain the "greenhouse effect" you'll get twenty different models, the differences being where the physics violation is hidden.

There is no debate amongst Catholic bishops about the existence of God.
There is no debate amongst the Global Warming believers about the existence of the "greenhouse effect."

I think they actually can measure the temperature on both sides of the moon remotely, but will read up on it a bit.
When I say there is not much argument about that some sort of greenhouse effect exists, I am talking about the idea
that the earth is warmer than a bear space rock, I.E. the moon.
I do think they could be wrong about the mechanism, as the whole 15 um window seems weak.
CO2 can absorb a 15 um photon, but it drives just about the lowest energy spin state.
Spontaneous emission would likely yield a 16 um random photon and a RF photon about .25 meters long.
Since the daytime sky has some 9.6 and 10.6 um emissions, CO2 is likely being pumped through some other
process. ( My first guess would be a vibrational transfer from solar excited nitrogen.)
During the night time, CO2 may function like they think, when it is not busy with all that excited nitrogen.

 

[Threegoofs]

You all do realize that the temperature of the moon is well below zero all the time when measured (as we do on earth) a few feet above the surface, right?

 

[Earthling]

I hypothesize increasing the CO2 concentration from 280 to 400 ppm over a period of 140 years will increase global mean temperature by 1.2C

Now all we need is 140 years and a spare Earth to test this real quick...

That's already been done and it failed miserably.
The extra 120 ppm of CO2 added over the last 160 years has only managed to raise the temperature of Earth about 0.1ºC.
The rest of the 0.76ºC rise in global temperature was caused by a very large variety of things that are rarely considered.

Natural causes:
Solar Activity, Melting Permafrost, ENSO, Earth’s tilt, ozone hole and ozone feedback, solar variability ** (NASA says 25%), water vapour, the most significant GHG, methane emissions from Arctic seabeds, bugs, rotting vegetation and other sources.
Coal seam fires, forest fires cause (temporary) deforestation, natural climate cycles, volcanic activity above and beneath the oceans, continental drift, far-infrared surface emissivity, etc.

Human causes:
CO2 From burning fossil fuels, methane emissions from animals and agriculture, such as rice paddies, deforestation, “especially tropical forests for wood, pulp and conversion to farmland,” fertilizer use, cement production, chlorofluorocarbons and their reduction, population Increase, etc.

 

[Earthling]

You all do realize that the temperature of the moon is well below zero all the time when measured (as we do on earth) a few feet above the surface, right?

"All the time," are you sure?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Joking aside, in all seriousness... what would possess you to come on a random political forum and ask for the "climate model codes" as though somebody here is going to produce such a thing and start working on it with you?

If you're really THAT serious about all this, why wouldn't you find this information for yourself rather than going on a forum and start fishing?

If you wanted to discuss all this, why wouldn't you investigate a model and break it down in a thread and complain about whatever it is you don't like...?

He is not after the code used in climate models just the basic science that underlies such models.

Easy to understand the difference.

 

[roughdraft274]

Unfortunately, this is an invalid rhetorical argument on your part. If you affirmtively assert that Global Warming is real and is active in our lives, then the full burden of support resides with you. You just did the Christian equivalent of "Prove that God doesn't exist!"

Scientists have presente the evidence for global warming. You were talking about how the theory has to be falsifiable. I gave you a way in which to falsify it. And then you bitched at me for answering your stupid question.

You don't know what your talking about.

 

[IB daMann]

Scientists have presente[sic] the evidence for global warming.

That's great. So you must have the falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false) that the evidence corroborates as being true, yes?

You were talking about how the theory has to be falsifiable.

Falsifiability is always a requirement in science. Unfalsifiability is always a requirement in religion.

I gave you a way in which to falsify it.

You have not given me any "it" to falsify or to test, and it is that "it" that I need for my Climate Predictor program. Anyone who has evidence for "it" must have "it." That's all I want.

And then you bitched at me for answering your stupid question.

Are you always this kind of whining excuse-maker? Just post the falsifiable Global Warming model ( that isn't false ) or just say that you aren't aware of any Global Warming science. No one is threatening to extract your teeth, you can relax.

 

[IB daMann]

You all do realize that the temperature of the moon is well below zero all the time when measured (as we do on earth) a few feet above the surface, right?

A quantity of water suspended a few feet above the daytime lunar surface would quickly boil and vaporize and certainly would not freeze.

 

[Threegoofs]

"All the time," are you sure?

Yep.

All the time.

It's basic physics. You wouldn't understand.

 

[Threegoofs]

A quantity of water suspended a few feet above the daytime lunar surface would quickly boil and vaporize and certainly would not freeze.

Right. And the temperature there would still be below zero.

 

[IB daMann]

I think they actually can measure the temperature on both sides of the moon remotely, but will read up on it a bit.

Great! Let me know what kind of data you find (and if you can, please note margin of error)

When I say there is not much argument about that some sort of greenhouse effect exists, I am talking about the idea that the earth is warmer than a bear space rock, I.E. the moon.

It's warmer and colder. The daytime earth surface is much colder than daytime on the moon but the nighttime earth surface is much warmer than that of the moon. But remember, we are talking about the atmosphere taken as a whole. There is no scientific support for the idea that only a certain proper subset of the atmosphere, e.g. "greenhouse gases", being responsible for the magical creation of thermal energy in violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

During the night time, CO2 may function like they think, when it is not busy with all that excited nitrogen.

At night, planet earth is busy radiating away it's daytime accumulated heat. It's just that the few hours of time it has before daytime returns is insufficient to radiate it all away

 

[IB daMann]

Right. And the temperature there would still be below zero.

That would imply water boils at below-zero temperatures.

I call "false."

 

[Lord of Planar]

Does anyone on THIS forum have the falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false)? I'm trying to find the "settled science" and use it as a basis for my "Climate Predictor" program. All I need is that science any good Global Warming believer insists s/he has and I'll be programming away in no time.

Good luck finding reliable evidence.

I think we all agree the earth has had some warming. The actual levels and reasons are really hard to pinpoint.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I hypothesize increasing the CO2 concentration from 280 to 400 ppm over a period of 140 years will increase global mean temperature by 1.2C

Now all we need is 140 years and a spare Earth to test this real quick...

While maintaining all other variables at a constant state.