"Settled Science"??

[palerider]

Right. As we discussed earlier, quantum phenomena can be measured and observed on the macroscopic scale, but with rare exceptions cannot directly be observed on a microscopic scale. Atomic properties are inferred from theory.

So no actual measured, observed example... Infer means to conclude from evidence....but you have no evidence...you have a mathematical model that must be right because....someone...said it was although it can yield no actual observation. I see

don't see that warmers have different versions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. There is only one version that makes physical sense. Basically greenhouse gases provide backscattering, a concept that also occurs in many different areas of physics. Backscattering is accepted by all scientists.

Being one, I wouldn't expect for you to see anything but what you are told to see.

climate science, the earth, warmed by the sun, emits long wave radiation.

Specific bands of earth's radiation are resonantly absorbed and scattered by some gasses in the atmosphere.

Some of the radiation in those bands are scattered back to earth.

The back-scattered radiation prevents the earth from losing as much heat as it would if those gasses were not present.

It is important to understand that the green house gasses don't directly heat up the earth, but simply cause the earth to lose less energy.

As I suspected, you don't adhere to the "official" greenhouse effect. You, like many warmers must know instinctively that the official description of the greenhouse effect is bunk so you pick one of the alternative versions which you can convince yourself is possible. Here is what the IPCC says the greenhouse effect is:

The Sun powers Earth’s climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet) part of the spectrum. Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is reflected directly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect. The glass walls in a greenhouse reduce airflow and increase the temperature of the air inside. Analogously, but through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet. Without the natural greenhouse effect, the average temperature at Earth’s surface would be below the freezing point of water.

Of course that description is absolute bunk and anyone with half a brain knows it, so in spite of the fact that you claim to believe the IPCC is a knowledgable scientific body, you don't adhere to their version of the greenhouse effect. Yours involves the atmosphere somehow holding up radiation from leaving the system. Never mind the fact that the adiabatic lapse rate for moist air (H2O being the most powerful so called greenhouse gas) is nearly twice as great as that for dry air.

 

[Lagboltz]

So no actual measured, observed example... Infer means to conclude from evidence....but you have no evidence...you have a mathematical model that must be right because....someone...said it was although it can yield no actual observation.

Yes yes, you already said many times you don't believe in modern physics.

Here is what the IPCC says the greenhouse effect is: ... etc...

Your quote from the IPCC says the same thing as I did. Only they use the phrase "reradiated back to Earth" rather than backscatter – same thing.

Of course that description is absolute bunk and anyone with half a brain knows it, so in spite of the fact that you claim to believe the IPCC is a knowledgable scientific body, you don't adhere to their version of the greenhouse effect

Yes I do. Any physicist whether they believe in AGW or not will believe that radiation exchange equilibrium and backscatter is a real and well established phenomena.

 

[palerider]

Yes yes, you already said many times you don't believe in modern physics.

Your quote from the IPCC says the same thing as I did. Only they use the phrase "reradiated back to Earth" rather than backscatter – same thing.

Reading comprehension problem or just selective blindness? You said: "It is important to understand that the green house gasses don't directly heat up the earth, but simply cause the earth to lose less energy."

The IPCC said: "through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet."

You say that it is important to understand that the gasses don't heat up the earth...the IPCC says that the gasses warms the surface of the planet. Two very different things. Like I said, it is not unusual for you warmers to pick a hypothesis other than the official one as it is clearly bunk.

So shuck and jive, bob and weave, duck and cover or whatever floats your boat...you advocate a different process than official climate science. Congratulations.

 

[dogtowner]

"modern physics"
Curious term to me. Im trying to grasp if this midern physics has rendered "olde time" physics (2nd law.specifically) wrong or what ?
(I made up olde time not knowing a proper term)

 

[Lagboltz]

Reading comprehension problem or just selective blindness? You said: "It is important to understand that the green house gasses don't directly heat up the earth, but simply cause the earth to lose less energy."

The IPCC said: "through a different physical process, the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet."

You say that it is important to understand that the gasses don't heat up the earth...the IPCC says that the gasses warms the surface of the planet. Two very different things. Like I said, it is not unusual for you warmers to pick a hypothesis other than the official one as it is clearly bunk.

It's simple. If the green house gasses could directly heat up the earth it would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics where the atmosphere is colder than the earth. A simple analogy is that a hot electric blanket would directly warm you whereas a regular blanket causes you to lose less heat. CO2 is analogous to a regular blanket rather than an "electric blanket". Both blankets eventually cause you to get warmer. Obviously your ICPP source was explaining the end result, the warming of the earth, not the process.

 

[Lagboltz]

"modern physics"

Curious term to me. Im trying to grasp if this midern physics has rendered "olde time" physics (2nd law.specifically) wrong or what ?

(I made up olde time not knowing a proper term)

"Olde time" physics is an interesting word for it. Physicists use the term "classical" physics. Modern physics refers to the era of quantum mechanics, relativity and the relation between mass and energy. Olde time physics refers to Newton's laws and a time (1911) when people didn't have the concept of an atom or photon.

Almost all of the concepts of classical physics are no longer valid at the subatomic level. The 2nd law survives only if you refer to "heat" and not "energy". Classical physics did not understand the concept of thermal radiation.

 

[palerider]

"modern physics"
Curious term to me. Im trying to grasp if this midern physics has rendered "olde time" physics (2nd law.specifically) wrong or what ?
(I made up olde time not knowing a proper term)

Modern physics is model based....no need to actually observe. If the model says it's true...it must be true. Modern physics is in a mess.

 

[palerider]

It's simple. If the green house gasses could directly heat up the earth it would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics where the atmosphere is colder than the earth. A simple analogy is that a hot electric blanket would directly warm you whereas a regular blanket causes you to lose less heat. CO2 is analogous to a regular blanket rather than an "electric blanket". Both blankets eventually cause you to get warmer. Obviously your ICPP source was explaining the end result, the warming of the earth, not the process.

\

Expected and predicted shuck and jive. The IPCC says that the greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet. Not an ambiguous statement subject to interpretation. They say explicitly that radiation returning from the atmosphere warms the surface of the planet....just as trenberth's cartoon depicts.

 

[Lagboltz]

Modern physics is model based....no need to actually observe.

Whoa there. Modern physics would not have come about without observation – Spectroscopy of elements, Rutherford scattering, the photoelectric effect experiments, high energy accelerator experiments. That's just off the top of my head. There are countless more.

The IPCC says that the greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet. Not an ambiguous statement subject to interpretation. They say explicitly that radiation returning from the atmosphere warms the surface of the planet.

Yes. The IPCC said pretty much the same thing as I said, only they went into more detail.

 

[dogtowner]

While all science is subject to change given new discovery would they not declare the now obsolete science as such ? If so, have they ? If not why ?

 

[Lagboltz]

While all science is subject to change given new discovery would they not declare the now obsolete science as such ? If so, have they ? If not why ?

That is a perceptive question. Any new science has to obey what is called the correspondence principle.

In one sense Newton's physics is obsolete, and replaced by quantum mechanics or relativity, but when objects are large and not traveling near the speed of light, the correspondence principle requires that the equations of relativity or quantum mechanics become very similar to classical physics to a high degree of accuracy.

So the older simpler classical physics is still very useful to compute the bouncing of billiard balls, or getting a spacecraft to orbit the moon, for example. However those simpler equations fail if applied to an electron orbiting a nucleus.

 

[palerider]

Whoa there. Modern physics would not have come about without observation – Spectroscopy of elements, Rutherford scattering, the photoelectric effect experiments, high energy accelerator experiments. That's just off the top of my head. There are countless more.

Yes. The IPCC said pretty much the same thing as I said, only they went into more detail.

So you believe that the earth receives more energy from the atmosphere than it does from the sun? You believe that that radiation actually warms the surface of the earth even though you said that such a thing would be a violation of the second law. Exactly what I would expect from you.

 

[palerider]

While all science is subject to change given new discovery would they not declare the now obsolete science as such ? If so, have they ? If not why ?

The second law still says that it isn't possible for energy to move from a cool object to a warm object....post modern physics has not overturned a single law of physics...and it won't. Post modern physics will eventually collapse in upon itself....a branch of science based on unprovable, untestable hypothesis can't sustain itself forever.

 

[dogtowner]

Well we're not talking about electrons here so it would not seem to invalidate classical physics.

 

[dogtowner]

So have they demonstrated CO2 having this greenhouse effect ? I get how water could manage it.