Hell freezes over: Koch's scientists confirm that climate change is REAL!

[palerider]

Now, focus. You keep saying that the climate scientists are saying that the source of the heat is the atmosphere.

Again, you completely misrepresent what I have been saying. Are you really not able to grasp my statements and repeat them?

At this point, I really don't even know where to start. You apparently lack even the most basic knowledge on the subject. You seem completely unaware that the greenhouse effect as described by climate pseudoscience is all about backradiation. Backradion violates the second law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy and without backradiation there is no AGW alarmism. Perhaps a definition of the greenhouse effect from the science dictionary might help you to begin to grasp the basis of your position.

greenhouse effect - The retention of part of the Sun's energy in the Earth's atmosphere in the form of heat as a result of the presence of greenhouse gases. solar energy, mostly in the form of short-wavelength visible radiation, penetrates the atmosphere and is absorbed by the Earth's surface. The heated surface then radiates some of that energy into the atmosphere in the form of longer-wavelength infrared radiation. Although some of this radiation escapes into space, much of it is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere, which in turn re-radiate a portion back to the Earth's surface. The atmosphere thus acts in a manner roughly analagous to the glass in a greenhouse, which allows sunlight to penetrate and warm the plants and soil but which traps most of the resulting heat energy inside. The greenhouse effect is essential to life on Earth; however, the intensification of its effect due to increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is considered to be the main contributing factor to global warming .

The link I provided to you for a graphic and short discussion of the energy budget clearly shows backradion from the cooler atmosphere being absorbed by the warmer surface of the earth in clear violation of the second law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy.

If you aren't able to grasp even that, then upon what, other than pure political interest might you base your postition?

 

[dogtowner]

a suggestion...
PLC could you perhaps offer up some science supporting your view ?
Pale could you perhaps dial back the snark ? (By the way, that is more like what management has asked of us all as opposed to just me since I have zero authority in the matter.)

 

[PLC1]

Again, you completely misrepresent what I have been saying. Are you really not able to grasp my statements and repeat them?

At this point, I really don't even know where to start. You apparently lack even the most basic knowledge on the subject. You seem completely unaware that the greenhouse effect as described by climate pseudoscience is all about backradiation. Backradion violates the second law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy and without backradiation there is no AGW alarmism. Perhaps a definition of the greenhouse effect from the science dictionary might help you to begin to grasp the basis of your position.

greenhouse effect - The retention of part of the Sun's energy in the Earth's atmosphere in the form of heat as a result of the presence of greenhouse gases. solar energy, mostly in the form of short-wavelength visible radiation, penetrates the atmosphere and is absorbed by the Earth's surface. The heated surface then radiates some of that energy into the atmosphere in the form of longer-wavelength infrared radiation. Although some of this radiation escapes into space, much of it is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere, which in turn re-radiate a portion back to the Earth's surface. The atmosphere thus acts in a manner roughly analagous to the glass in a greenhouse, which allows sunlight to penetrate and warm the plants and soil but which traps most of the resulting heat energy inside. The greenhouse effect is essential to life on Earth; however, the intensification of its effect due to increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is considered to be the main contributing factor to global warming .

The link I provided to you for a graphic and short discussion of the energy budget clearly shows backradion from the cooler atmosphere being absorbed by the warmer surface of the earth in clear violation of the second law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy.

If you aren't able to grasp even that, then upon what, other than pure political interest might you base your postition?

When you make statements like:

According to climate pseudoscience, the surface of the earth receives more than twice as much energy from the atmosphere than it does from its only energy source, the sun.

for some odd reason it leads me to believe that you think that the scientists are saying that the surface of the earth receives more energy from the atmosphere than it does from the sun.

But, you aren't saying what your words seem to indicate. Unless you again make a 180 degree turn around, I'll go with the assumption that you understand that no one is saying that the atmosphere actually produces heat.

Now, dogtowner is correct. I should post some science, and you need to lay off the snark. Your playground level insults only make you look bad anyway, as I've said.
So, here goes:

Science: The velocity of light in a vacuum is a universal constant.

Science: When light meets a denser medium, it slows that velocity.

Science: Longer wave lengths of light do not pass through denser medium as readily a do shorter wave lengths.

Science: Infrared radiation produces heat when it strikes a solid object. (radiant heat, I believe is the term).

Science: In general, higher elevations have lower average annual temperatures than do lower elevations at the same latitude.

Do you, or do you not accept the above as real science?

 

[dogtowner]

Now, dogtowner is correct.

as usual

I should post some science, and you need to lay off the snark. Your playground level insults only make you look bad anyway, as I've said.
So, here goes:

Science: The velocity of light in a vacuum is a universal constant.

Science: When light meets a denser medium, it slows that velocity.

Science: Longer wave lengths of light do not pass through denser medium as readily a do shorter wave lengths.

Science: Infrared radiation produces heat when it strikes a solid object. (radiant heat, I believe is the term).

Science: In general, higher elevations have lower average annual temperatures than do lower elevations at the same latitude.

Do you, or do you not accept the above as real science?

well ok there's a start ! hows about it Pale ?
as I understand it, thats the gist of the CO2/greenhouse gas argument .

 

[palerider]

for some odd reason it leads me to believe that you think that the scientists are saying that the surface of the earth receives more energy from the atmosphere than it does from the sun.

According to the energy budget that I provided to you, which is the energy budget that all of climate science accepts, the earth absorbs 161 watts per square meter from the sun. The same energy budget says that 333 watts per square meter are backradiated from the atmosphere back to the surface of the earth in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy.

But, you aren't saying what your words seem to indicate. Unless you again make a 180 degree turn around, I'll go with the assumption that you understand that no one is saying that the atmosphere actually produces heat.

Do you see that yellow bar indicating 161 watts per square meter absorbed at the surface from the sun? That is the amount of incoming energy from the sun. Now look at the amount of energy the budget states is being radiated out from the surface of the earth. 396 watts per square meter labeled as surface radiation. 80 watts per square meter labeled as evapotranspiration and 17 watts per square meter labeled as thermals. That is a total of 493 watts per square meter from a source (the surface of the earth) which receives 161 watts per square meter from its energy source. If the surface of the earth were a perfect reflector (which it isn't) it could radiate 161 watts per square meter which is exactly what the energy budget says is being absorbed from the sun. In order to radiate 493 watts per square meter as stated by that energy budget, 332 watts per square meter must be being created somewhere. Where do you suppose it is coming from? According to climate science, that 332 watts is coming from backradion which requires heat to move from the colder atmosphere to the warmer earth in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states explicitly that it is not possible for heat to move from a colder body to a warmer body.

 

[PLC1]

According to the energy budget that I provided to you, which is the energy budget that all of climate science accepts, the earth absorbs 161 watts per square meter from the sun. The same energy budget says that 333 watts per square meter are backradiated from the atmosphere back to the surface of the earth in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy.




Do you see that yellow bar indicating 161 watts per square meter absorbed at the surface from the sun? That is the amount of incoming energy from the sun. Now look at the amount of energy the budget states is being radiated out from the surface of the earth. 396 watts per square meter labeled as surface radiation. 80 watts per square meter labeled as evapotranspiration and 17 watts per square meter labeled as thermals. That is a total of 493 watts per square meter from a source (the surface of the earth) which receives 161 watts per square meter from its energy source. If the surface of the earth were a perfect reflector (which it isn't) it could radiate 161 watts per square meter which is exactly what the energy budget says is being absorbed from the sun. In order to radiate 493 watts per square meter as stated by that energy budget, 332 watts per square meter must be being created somewhere. Where do you suppose it is coming from? According to climate science, that 332 watts is coming from backradion which requires heat to move from the colder atmosphere to the warmer earth in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states explicitly that it is not possible for heat to move from a colder body to a warmer body.

So from the words you posted, which may or may not be what you actually believe, you think that the climate scientsts believe that more energy reaches the Earth than actualy comes from the sun.

From the other words you posted, which isn't what you believe at all, you think that the science is saying that energy is created by the atmosphere in some way.

Now, before I try to answer that one, do you really believe that the scientists are claiming that more energy reaches Earth than is comes from the sun?
Where do you think they are claiming that energy comes from?


Now, about the scientific principles I've posted, do you accept them, or not?

 

[palerider]

So from the words you posted, which may or may not be what you actually believe, you think that the climate scientsts believe that more energy reaches the Earth than actualy comes from the sun.

The energy budget has more energy radiating away from the earth than it absorbs from the sun. A great deal more.

From the other words you posted, which isn't what you believe at all, you think that the science is saying that energy is created by the atmosphere in some way.

If energy that has radiated away from the surface of the earth could be re-radiated back and actually absorbed by the earth, that would constitute the creation of energy as the amount of energy within the system would increase. Picture an electric heater in the center of your room. That heater is radiating 100 watts per square meter. You could put any number of reflectors around that heater and it would never radiate a single watt more than you are paying the electric company for. Climate science is making the claim that if you put reflectors around that heater, that somehow, you will be able to get that heater to radiate more than 200 watts while only paying the electric company for enough electricity to radiate 100 watts. In other words, more out than is coming in....perpetual motion.

Now, before I try to answer that one, do you really believe that the scientists are claiming that more energy reaches Earth than is comes from the sun?

I am looking at the graphic. 161 watts per square meter absorbed by the surface from the sun. 493 watts per square meter radiated out from the same surface that just absorbed 161 watts per square meter. The energy budget indicates that more than twice as much energy is absorbed by the surface of the earth in the form of backradiation from the atmosphere than is absorbed from the sun. What do you get from the graphic?

Where do you think they are claiming that energy comes from?

They claim that that additional energy required to allow the earth to radiate 493 watts per square meter is being backradiated to the surface of the earth from the atmosphere.

I think that the energy budget is a sham. It is the basis for the largest hoax ever perpetrated in the history of mankind. As I have said before, that energy budget is based on an expression of incoming energy from the sun in terms of P/4. It treats the earth as if it were a black body. You can express energy to and from a black body in terms of P/4 because if you are looking at a black body, it looks basically the same from any direction. A star is a black body. If mathematically, you make a flat surface out of it, you are still expressing reality (or very close to it) in terms of radiating energy because from top to bottom and all the way around, the star looks pretty much the same and the radiation from any point is pretty much the same with some slight variation.

The earth is not a black body. It is not a self illuminated 3D object that looks the same from any direction. The earth is an illuminted 3D body that is being radiated across 180 degrees of its surface at any given time and that radiation across that 180 degrees is not uniform as more radiation is being absorbed near the equator and progressively less is being absorbed as you near the poles.

The greenhouse effect is a fabrication required to explain the temperature of the earth because it is being modeled as a flat disk that is being irradiated by the sun at a rate of 1/4 of the actual amount of energy coming in from the sun 24 hours a day with no daytime or night time cycle. If you model the earth as it actually is, ie an illuminted 3D body being irradiated across 180 degrees of its surface and express the energy coming in from the sun in actual watts per square meter rather than P/4, a greenhouse effect is not necessary to explain the temperature of the earth.

Now, about the scientific principles I've posted, do you accept them, or not?

Like the issue of whether or not there is warming, you are tyring to stuff science into a small box when it simply doesn't fit.

To number one, the answer is maybe.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

To number two, yes.

To number three, most of the time see the link associated with number one.

To number four, infrared is radiation. That is, it is energy. That energy may be expressed as heat when it strikes a solid object, but ifrared does not produce heat.

T0 number five, yes. It can be explained in terms of adiabatic lapse rate.

 

[GenSeneca]

In order to radiate 493 watts per square meter as stated by that energy budget, 332 watts per square meter must be being created somewhere. Where do you suppose it is coming from?

Let's consult the scriptures...

Philistines 3:16 - "two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees..." - His supreme holiness Albert Gore (inventor of the internet)

 

[PLC1]

The global energy flows graphic posted above shows 341 watts/square meter coming in, with 102 going out as reflected solar radiation, and another 239 going out as long wave radiation. that would seem to be a balance.

It shows some transfer and moving around of energy, of course, but add up the outgo and the income, and they balance.

Obviously, if more energy is being radiated out into space than is coming from the sun, then the temperature of the Earth would have to be decreasing.

So, let's see if other sources show a balance:

Here's what those climate scientists at NASA say about the balance of energy:

Earth’s heat engine does more than simply move heat from one part of the surface to another; it also moves heat from the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere back to space. This flow of incoming and outgoing energy is Earth’s energy budget. For Earth’s temperature to be stable over long periods of time, incoming energy and outgoing energy have to be equal. In other words, the energy budget at the top of the atmosphere must balance. This state of balance is called radiative equilibrium.

So, they understand that the heat going out has to balance the heat going in.

Of course, a lot of energy is involved, so even a very small imbalance would lead to warming/cooling, depending on the direction.

It would be quite surprising if the scientists at NASA didn't understand the laws of thermodynamics you've mentioned, and actually believed that energy was somehow produced that didn't come from the sun.

But, it seems that they do believe that there has to be a balance, and the chart you've posted shows a balance, and NASA's publication shows a balance.


Now, regarding your heater analogy, of course no amount of reflectors is going to make the heater produce more, however:

If the room is better insulated, more of the heat is going t ostay on the room, isn't it?
and if you did put reflectors around, more of the heat would stay in the room wouldn't it?

Obviously, if you put a heater in a tent, it's not going to be as warm as if you put one in a well insulated room of the same size.

I'm not sure just what your analogy is supposed to show.

 

[dogtowner]

Now, regarding your heater analogy, of course no amount of reflectors is going to make the heater produce more, however:

If the room is better insulated, more of the heat is going t ostay on the room, isn't it?
and if you did put reflectors around, more of the heat would stay in the room wouldn't it?

Obviously, if you put a heater in a tent, it's not going to be as warm as if you put one in a well insulated room of the same size.

I'm not sure just what your analogy is supposed to show.

if the room is better insulated less comes in. the nature of insulation is to exclude outside influence leaving the status quo in the insulated space. perhaps INSULATION is not exactly the term you want ?

same would seem to apply to reflectors unless you mean that they reflect back in but that would suggest that again you have less inbound.

 

[palerider]

The global energy flows graphic posted above shows 341 watts/square meter coming in, with 102 going out as reflected solar radiation, and another 239 going out as long wave radiation. that would seem to be a balance.

Yes, it would seem to be a balance, but it is a contrived balance. It has nothing to do with actual physics. It is a construct designed specifically to attempt to rationalize the temperature of the earth. That balance requires 333 watts per square meter to be radiated and absorbed by the ground from the atmosphere when the second law of thermodynamics states explicitly that such a thing is not possible. That the numbers balance means nothing if the laws of physics are ignored in the balancing.

It shows some transfer and moving around of energy, of course, but add up the outgo and the income, and they balance.

I don't know whether you ever took a physics course or not and I highly doubt that you took anything like a 2000 or 3000 level course, but when you get to that point, having the correct answer is not sufficient and doesn't prove a thing. It doesn't mean anything at all if you balance the numbers but break numerous laws of physics in the process. Constructing a fantasy that happens to balance tells you nothing about what is actually going on in the atmosphere.

If you have a model that reflects actual atmospheric physics, you should be able to plug the parameters of any planet and its atmosphere into the model and get a reasonablly accurate prediction of the temperature of that planet. Astrophysicists have been doing it for decades. If you plug the parameters of any of our neighbors in the solar system into the models used to predict earth conditions, however, you don't get a result that is even close because the models aren't based on actual physics. They are written to reach a pre determined outcome.

Obviously, if more energy is being radiated out into space than is coming from the sun, then the temperature of the Earth would have to be decreasing.

So, let's see if other sources show a balance:

Here's what those climate scientists at NASA say about the balance of energy:

That budget doesn't mean anything. Percentages of what? Based on what? It doesn't even say how much energy is being dealt with. It just says that there is a balance but doesn't even begin to say how that balance was arrived at. Agencies like NASA have taken to showing budgets like that one that only show percentages rather than actual energy absorbed and radiated in terms of watts per square meter because they know that the whole issue of backradiation makes them look foolish. The budget you link to does, however, require 332 watts of non physical backradiation from the cooler atmospher to the warmer surface of the earth in order to balance.

So, they understand that the heat going out has to balance the heat going in.

Of course they understand that the numbers must balance, but the budget they put together in an attempt to reach a balance doesn't jibe with reality. It is a construct, patched together with a predetermined outcome. Those energy budgets and the models built upon them deal with only one kind of energy transfer; radiation. In earth's atmosphere radiation accounts for about 8% of the energy movement within the system. Convection is the primary mode of energy movement within our atmosphere. It accounts for roughly 67% of the energy movement from the surface of the earth to the upper atmosphere. Water vapor condensation in the troposphere accounts for another 25% of the energy movement within the atmosphere. The models upon which the greenhouse effect depend upon completely disregard the mechanisms by which 92% of the energy is moved through the system and focus on the least important mode of energy movement. In short, they can't and don't reflect reality. They are fabrications that don't operate with a framework of any sort of real world physics.

Of course, a lot of energy is involved, so even a very small imbalance would lead to warming/cooling, depending on the direction.

The models reach a balance by disregarding the laws of physics. Take away the backradiation which the second law of thermodynamics, and the law of conservation of eenrgy states explicitly is not possible and your balance disappears in the blink of an eye.

It would be quite surprising if the scientists at NASA didn't understand the laws of thermodynamics you've mentioned, and actually believed that energy was somehow produced that didn't come from the sun.

I never said that they didn't understand them. Hansen holds a PhD in physics but is willing to prostitute his intellect for $$$. The laws of thermodynamics are straight forward and not subject to interpretation. Backradion is based on a corrupted version of the Stefan-Boltzman law that is not taught in any physics course. As I said, the greenhouse effect is a fraud.

But, it seems that they do believe that there has to be a balance, and the chart you've posted shows a balance, and NASA's publication shows a balance.

Again and again and again, a balance doesn't mean anything if you have to violate the laws of physics to reach it. Not only do they violate the laws of physics, they completely disregard the mechanisms by which 92% of the energy is moved from the surface of the earth to the upper atmosphere.

(continued)

 

[palerider]

(continuation)

Now, regarding your heater analogy, of course no amount of reflectors is going to make the heater produce more, however:

If the room is better insulated, more of the heat is going t ostay on the room, isn't it?
and if you did put reflectors around, more of the heat would stay in the room wouldn't it?

Yes, if you used an insulator you could retain more heat than you would if you had no insulation. But the "balanced" energy budget that you keep referring to requires that those reflectors cause that heater to radiate more than 200 watts, over 100 of which you are not paying the electric company for because you would be creating energy.

Before you begin to try to pass CO2 and the other greenhouse gasses off as insulation, however, perhaps we need to look at what the science dictionary says is and is not an insulator.

insulator - A material or an object that does not easily allow heat, electricity, light, or sound to pass through it. Air, cloth and rubber are good electrical insulators; feathers and wool make good thermal insulators. Compare conductor.

In order to be an insulator, a material must prevent or retard heat (or radiation in this case). CO2 does not retard IR radiation. Of course it absorbs IR in a very narrow wavelength, as indicated by its absorption spectra. Its emission spectra however is precisely the opposite of its absorption spectra which tells us that it emits exactly as much radiation as it absorbs. IR passes through CO2 molecules at or very near the speed of light and is not slowed down in the least. That narrow wavelength of IR that does get absorbed and emitted, however, does get scattered and scattering IR serves to cool, not warm.

Now, lets take a look at what a conductor is:

conductor - A material or an object that conducts heat, electricity, light, or sound. Electrical conductors contain electric charges (usually electrons) that are relatively free to move through the material; a voltage applied across the conductor therefore creates an electric current. Insulators (electrical nonconductors) contain no charges that move when subject to a voltage.

Clearly, CO2 is a conductor. That is, it facilitates the exit of the narrow band of IR that it absorbs on its way out of the atmosphere. CO2 has no capacity to hold or store heat. There is one molecule in the atmosphere that can actually store heat but alas, there is no political advantage to demonizing that gas because we can do nothing about it. That gas is water vapor.

Obviously, if you put a heater in a tent, it's not going to be as warm as if you put one in a well insulated room of the same size.

But the atmosphere does not act as an insulator. It is a conductor.

I'm not sure just what your analogy is supposed to show.

It is supposed to show that you can not get the heater to radiate more than 100 watts no matter how many reflectors or how much insulation you use. You are never going to get energy out of that heater that you don't have to pay the power company for. In the so called "balanced" energy budgets, however, you must create an additional 332 watts of energy by reflecting it from the cooler atmosphere down to the surface of the earth where it is absorbed and re emitted. Your balanced energy budget requires that the surface of the earth radiate more than 300 watts per square meter above and beyond that which it absorbs from the sun. It is balanced at the expense of the laws of physics. The numbers on trenberth's energy budget are the basis for the energy budgets for NASA, GISS, the IPCC, etc. and they are all fraudulent.

 

[palerider]

if the room is better insulated less comes in. the nature of insulation is to exclude outside influence leaving the status quo in the insulated space. perhaps INSULATION is not exactly the term you want ?

same would seem to apply to reflectors unless you mean that they reflect back in but that would suggest that again you have less inbound.

Those laws of physics are pesky so and so's aren't they?

 

[PLC1]

if the room is better insulated less comes in. the nature of insulation is to exclude outside influence leaving the status quo in the insulated space. perhaps INSULATION is not exactly the term you want ?

same would seem to apply to reflectors unless you mean that they reflect back in but that would suggest that again you have less inbound.

I think the analogy is a little strange, as the heater is inside the room, presumably. The sun is outside of the Earth. Of course, if the room is better insulated, and the source of heat is on the outside, then less of it gets inside. If the source of heat is inside, then less of it gets outside. That's why I think the analogy breaks down.

 

[PLC1]

Those laws of physics are pesky so and so's aren't they?

They're pretty good at explaining the world around us and how it works, though.