Remember me
▼ Content

Clouds are warming Earth, not (so much) GHGs



Page 2 of 7<1234>>>
06-11-2019 23:32
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3251)
Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'net flow' of heat.

This is false. You made it up!

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 06-11-2019 23:32
06-11-2019 23:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12771)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'net flow' of heat.

This is false. You made it up!


No, I did not make it up. There is no such thing as a 'net flow' of heat. YOU made THAT up. Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
07-11-2019 04:18
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3251)
Into the Night wrote:There is no such thing as a 'net flow' of heat. YOU made THAT up.

Nope I just learned about it. From text books. (not your oral tradition of a guy on the street).

I got for NET FLOW: TWELVE REFERENCES CITED

ITN/IBD: nothing

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
07-11-2019 08:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12771)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:There is no such thing as a 'net flow' of heat. YOU made THAT up.

Nope I just learned about it. From text books. (not your oral tradition of a guy on the street).

I got for NET FLOW: TWELVE REFERENCES CITED

ITN/IBD: nothing


There is no such thing as 'net heat flow'. RDCF.


The Parrot Killer
08-11-2019 12:50
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3251)
Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'net heat flow'. RDCF.

You love to get cute and switch the terms around. HEAT is the RESULT of the NET FLOW of THERMAL ENERGY. THERMAL ENERGY does have a NET FLOW, which is called HEAT when it's not in equilibrium.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
08-11-2019 19:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12771)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'net heat flow'. RDCF.

You love to get cute and switch the terms around.

No, that would be you. That's why you are in multiple paradoxes. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
HEAT is the RESULT of the NET FLOW of THERMAL ENERGY.
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
THERMAL ENERGY does have a NET FLOW, which is called HEAT when it's not in equilibrium.

Nope. There is no such thing as 'net flow'.


The Parrot Killer
09-11-2019 17:07
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
Well, sorry to keep you waiting


Actually I am not really into the discussion on this board, because, well, it is way too stupid. Rather I am abusing this board as a log to document some evolutionary moments of my research. Well...

Why do the records show that positive correlation between clouds and temperature? Of course that is exactly what is to be expected, since clouds must be warming in theory. But still, correlation does not mean causation, and one could deny both the theory as well as the empiric evidence.

The most logical objection would be to say that clouds are positively correlated to humidity (or vapor) and thus the named positive correlation in temperature was actually due to the co-correlated vapor, rather than clouds themselves. To check this, we should probably have a look at humidity too.

Indeed cloudiness and humidity are positively correlated. The more clouds there are, the higher relative humidity (Graph 1).

Of course, as named before, we have that nasty little issue of rain bias, which both affects temperatures as well as humidity. As a probe to reduce this bias we start with all records included and then drop off those records with rain. Since rain, once it has fallen, has lasting effects we do not stop there and progessively increase the records we omit. Graph 2 shows the consecutive number of records dropped and how that affects average temperatures given cloud situation.

As we can see, temperatures progessively increase with cloudy scenarios as the rain chill bias is getting reduced. However the strongest impact comes from the first two records.

With clear skies it is a little different. Even though "CLR" is by far the coldest cloud condition to start with, eliminating rainy records (of which there are not many) shows a minimal increase in temperature with the original rain event, but then temperatures drop even further. So there are actually two things going against each other. As with the other series eliminating rain events has the strongest effect with records one and two. Then however the elimination of "hidden" or simply unreported cloudiness (due to the 12.000ft ceiling) purifies the data and shows that real "CLR" skies are statistically even colder.

How about rel. humidity as a proxy for the concentration of assumed super-GHG vapor? Unsurprisingly cloudiness and humidity are positively correlated. CLR skies show average humidity of 73.5%, while OVC has an average 83%. So one could argue it were actually not clouds increasing surface temperatures, but rather the correlated vapor. At the same time we know that rain will increase rel. humidity, and again rain is correlated to clouds as well.

Graph 3 finally should answer most of these questions. By eliminating rainy records humidity drops off sharply. While the complete data set shows a difference of 10 percentage points between CLR and OVC, this delta shrinks to about 3 percentage points only excluding the rain bias.

This little delta in vapor however is not sufficient to explain the significantly warmer temperatures we see with clouds over clear skies (Note that GHGs have "diminishing returns" with regard to their "greenhouse forcing". For example, if we assumed vapor would cause a "GHE" of 20K, a 5% increase would not yield another 1K in temperature, but rather a meagre 0.1-0.2K). Thus we can rule out vapor as a cause and have to conclude it are indeed clouds themselves responsible for the positive cloud/temperature correlation.

With low, tropical clouds warming the planet (the kind that was supposed to have the strongest negative forcing!), we actually see just the tip of the iceberg. Even though I do not try to quantify the magnitude of positive global cloud forcing, it is obvious it will be even larger both in higher altitudes and latitudes.

As named before, an Earth that is actually warmed by clouds has little scope for explicit GHGs and whole theory of a GHG induced GHE is largely jeopardized by the facts named here.

PS. Sorry for the plain vanilla Excel charts. I did not take the time to decorate them..
Attached image:

09-11-2019 17:08
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
Graph 2:
Attached image:

09-11-2019 17:08
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
Graph 3:
Attached image:

09-11-2019 20:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12771)
Leitwolf wrote:
Well, sorry to keep you waiting


Actually I am not really into the discussion on this board, because, well, it is way too stupid. Rather I am abusing this board as a log to document some evolutionary moments of my research. Well...

All this means is that you are not here to discuss anything. You are here to preach your religion.
Leitwolf wrote:
Why do the records show that positive correlation between clouds and temperature?

They don't. You are leaping to conclusions. That's a fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
09-11-2019 20:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12771)
Leitwolf wrote:
Graph 3:


All of your graphs are based on random numbers. You are not able to see what the temperature at any location would have been had the clouds not been there under the same conditions.

You are also reversing cause and effect. Are you measuring the effect of clouds, or the conditions in the air that are conducive to cloud formation?


The Parrot Killer
09-11-2019 20:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7037)
Leitwolf wrote: Actually I am not really into the discussion on this board, because, well, it is way too stupid.

It wouldn't be if you wouldn't make it such.

Leitwolf wrote:Why do the records show that positive correlation between clouds and temperature?

If you could somehow learn that "correlation" is not "causation" then you might be able to discern what is the cause and what is the effect without getting the two reversed.

I have a theory. Tell me what you think.

I believe that you should see a correlation between colder air flowing into a region and a decrease in the average temperature for that region.

I believe that you should see a correlation between warmer air flowing into a region and an increase in the average temperature for that region.

I firmly believe that if colder air brings clouds into a region then you will see a correlation between increased clouds and colder temperatures in that region.

I firmly believe that if warmer air brings clouds into a region then you will see a correlation between increased clouds and warmer temperatures in that region.


Do you agree or disagree?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-11-2019 08:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3251)
Leitwolf wrote:...the discussion on this board...is way too stupid....using this board as a log to document ...my research....
That is an excellent use of what remains a highly ranked board on google and I really enjoy your posts. And "way too stupid" has had a shocking influence on world events so ignore it at your peril! : )

Leitwolf wrote:
As named before, an Earth that is actually warmed by clouds has little scope for explicit GHGs and whole theory of a GHG induced GHE is largely jeopardized by the facts named here.
So what I understand is you're saying that if you keep things apples to apples: about the same humidity, no rain, comparing clear to cloudy it's much warmer when cloudy. Why would this call the GHE into question? Isn't it a GHE? I didn't understand "little scope", or maybe I do.

In my attempt to summarize the going theory:GHE effect theory topic
Clouds would seem to be ignored. So are you saying they are the dominant factor and therefore the transitional theory, which ignores them, is grossly overstating the rest of it?


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
17-11-2019 16:01
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2056)

Of course, as named before, we have that nasty little issue of rain bias, which both affects temperatures as well as humidity. As a probe to reduce this bias we start with all records included and then drop off those records with rain. Since rain, once it has fallen, has lasting effects we do not stop there and progessively increase the records we omit. Graph 2 shows the consecutive number of records dropped and how that affects average temperatures given cloud situation.


So, basically what you are doing with your data, is removing the cooling effects of clouds and rain. Cherry-picking just the data that works for what you are trying to illustrate, and discarding the data that mitigates. What I got out of it, is that water, and water vapor cool the planet. As temperatures rise, more water, and more cooling. Water vapor regulates the global temperature, not CO2. We've got an abundance of water, so we have nothing to worry about, as far as global warming goes. The biggest threat, is that while everyone is preparing for a scorched earth apocalypse, we really ought to be getting ready for the next ice age.

You really did a fine job of illustrating how global warming really works, just play with a bunch of random data, of your choosing, ignoring key factors, and declaring global warming. You must be an amateur math-magician.
18-11-2019 00:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12771)
tmiddles wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:...the discussion on this board...is way too stupid....using this board as a log to document ...my research....
That is an excellent use of what remains a highly ranked board on google and I really enjoy your posts. And "way too stupid" has had a shocking influence on world events so ignore it at your peril! : )

Leitwolf wrote:
As named before, an Earth that is actually warmed by clouds has little scope for explicit GHGs and whole theory of a GHG induced GHE is largely jeopardized by the facts named here.
So what I understand is you're saying that if you keep things apples to apples: about the same humidity, no rain, comparing clear to cloudy it's much warmer when cloudy. Why would this call the GHE into question? Isn't it a GHE? I didn't understand "little scope", or maybe I do.

In my attempt to summarize the going theory:GHE effect theory topic
Clouds would seem to be ignored. So are you saying they are the dominant factor and therefore the transitional theory, which ignores them, is grossly overstating the rest of it?


No gas, vapor, or liquid is capable of warming the Earth using infrared emitted from Earth's surface. You cannot create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer
18-11-2019 01:07
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
Leitwolf wrote:
As named before, an Earth that is actually warmed by clouds has little scope for explicit GHGs and whole theory of a GHG induced GHE is largely jeopardized by the facts named here.
So what I understand is you're saying that if you keep things apples to apples: about the same humidity, no rain, comparing clear to cloudy it's much warmer when cloudy. Why would this call the GHE into question? Isn't it a GHE? I didn't understand "little scope", or maybe I do.

In my attempt to summarize the going theory:GHE effect theory topic
Clouds would seem to be ignored. So are you saying they are the dominant factor and therefore the transitional theory, which ignores them, is grossly overstating the rest of it?

What one considers to be a "GHE" is of course a matter of definition, but there are a lot of issues.
1. Actual greenhouses do not have a greenhouse effect as such. They heat up largely due to eliminating convection with windows shut, just like a car in the sun. The atmosphere does not and can not work that way.
2. The concept of a GHE by "back radiation" will not work either, for reasons named above.
3. There is a mechanism that actually works (Photosphere, adiabatic lapse rate..), but calling this a GHE is very odd. Yet we stick with this terminology.
4. Then the implicit idea of the GHE is there were GHGs which explicitly heat up a planet, which would otherwise be much colder. Clouds do not really fit this concept, because a) it is (wrongly) believed they would cool the planet over all (more negative than positive forcing), which by definition would make them an anti-greenhouse factor. And b) even if we accept the opposite is true, clouds just marginally have a stronger positive than negative forcing, and both are interconnected. Calling this a "GHE" is difficult.

Let us remember what the GHG induced GHE theory is based on: clouds would reflect about 70W/m2 of solar radiation (included in total albedo), but would not retain any LWIR going out. That would only be done by GHGs. Occasionally it would be conceded that clouds indeed reduce LWIR emissions, but they would assign a ridiculously low figure, like 31W/m2 (IPCC 1.AR) and yet forget about it right away and still claim GHGs were exclusively responsible..

But with clouds actually warming the planet in total, their positive forcing must outweigh their negative forcing of about 70W/m2. Let us assume some 90W/m2. This shoves off 90W/m2 of a GHE of only 150W/m2. If we furthermore allow for real surface emissivity he have to deduct another 35W/m2, leaving just a remainder of about 25W/m2 that can be attributed to GHGs. That is very little.
18-11-2019 01:40
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
Ok, I guess this is another interesting detail. I just developed procedures to read out and categorize the altitude of reported clouds. It is a piece of information that I omitted so far for simplicity, but finally I was way too curious. I was surprised to learn there actually are some records reporting clouds well above 12.000ft. However, the policy is not to do so, and so the amount of data is quite thin in this regard. Anyhow..

More important is the basic problem, that we believe (not just me) that clouds will have more positive forcing the higher up they are. Due this the ceiling of 12.000ft will necessarily make clouds look colder than they are. Or to be more accurate, it makes cloudless skies look warmer than they are. I mean an OVC sky is an OVC sky, regardless how far the clouds may reach up. CLR skies however can actually be OVC above 12.000ft, and yet be reported as CLR. The logic suggests, that these high clouds come with very high temperatures and thus strongly distort the statistic.

For that reason reading both reported altitude of clouds in OVC scenarios and plotting them against average temperatures should give some revealing answers.

Chart1 gives the data for the total sample (2000 stations 2016 + 2017). Note: data quality is only good up to 12(.000ft). Above that only few data points show a small, but reasonable sample size (like 15, 20, 25..), which is indicated by grey scale.

As we can see, the higher up the reported cloud cover is, the higher the temperature, confirming what has been said before. However we may have a strong latitude bias. The warmer it is, the higher the troposphere and thus clouds may reach higher as well. For this reason Chart2 only shows stations located at <35° latitude.

And finally Chart3 restricts the analysis to tropical stations only.

As we can see, all charts show a strong positive correlation between cloud altitude and temperature, confirming that clouds indeed show even more warming at higher altitudes. Given that these data generally omit high altitude clouds, with few exceptions only, we definitely have a strong bias undererstimating the total warming by clouds.

Chart1:
Attached image:

18-11-2019 01:41
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
Chart2:
Attached image:

18-11-2019 01:42
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
Chart3:
Attached image:

18-11-2019 10:33
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2056)
Have you considered wind? The air is always moving, circulating, all kinds of different patterns, speeds, and directions, at different altitudes. Clouds form where warm, humid air meets with cooler air. Is it really the clouds warming, or is the warm air moving, that formed the clouds? There is always convection. Water vapor increases, the higher the humidity, the higher the density, which helps conduction of heat, from the ground upward. The sun is only adding energy to half the planet at any given point in time.

The major flaw with GHGs, is that the GHE is only observed in a 'jar', in a laboratory, small scale, no wind, no humidity. The whole container is exposed to the IR light, heats everything, all at once, the entire experiment. The atmosphere is very dynamic, always moving, only half is exposed to sunlight. Two very different things, no real world comparison. The 0.04% CO2 has nothing to do with it. The focus on CO2, is that it's a taxable, controllable byproduct of or energy use. CO2 is really the source of life on this planet. Every living thing is based on carbon molecules. The only way we get carbon in our diets, is from plants, and photosynthesis. Reducing CO2 is bad for life, all plant life dies at 150 ppm and below. The ideal level is 700-1200 ppm for plant health. We've never seen what the world would be like, plants received all the CO2 they need to do their best. Would think that since photosynthesis uses solar energy, it would have a cooling effect?
18-11-2019 22:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12771)
Leitwolf wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
As named before, an Earth that is actually warmed by clouds has little scope for explicit GHGs and whole theory of a GHG induced GHE is largely jeopardized by the facts named here.
So what I understand is you're saying that if you keep things apples to apples: about the same humidity, no rain, comparing clear to cloudy it's much warmer when cloudy. Why would this call the GHE into question? Isn't it a GHE? I didn't understand "little scope", or maybe I do.

In my attempt to summarize the going theory:GHE effect theory topic
Clouds would seem to be ignored. So are you saying they are the dominant factor and therefore the transitional theory, which ignores them, is grossly overstating the rest of it?

What one considers to be a "GHE" is of course a matter of definition, but there are a lot of issues.
1. Actual greenhouses do not have a greenhouse effect as such. They heat up largely due to eliminating convection with windows shut, just like a car in the sun. The atmosphere does not and can not work that way.
2. The concept of a GHE by "back radiation" will not work either, for reasons named above.
3. There is a mechanism that actually works (Photosphere, adiabatic lapse rate..), but calling this a GHE is very odd. Yet we stick with this terminology.
4. Then the implicit idea of the GHE is there were GHGs which explicitly heat up a planet, which would otherwise be much colder. Clouds do not really fit this concept, because a) it is (wrongly) believed they would cool the planet over all (more negative than positive forcing), which by definition would make them an anti-greenhouse factor. And b) even if we accept the opposite is true, clouds just marginally have a stronger positive than negative forcing, and both are interconnected. Calling this a "GHE" is difficult.

Let us remember what the GHG induced GHE theory is based on: clouds would reflect about 70W/m2 of solar radiation (included in total albedo), but would not retain any LWIR going out. That would only be done by GHGs. Occasionally it would be conceded that clouds indeed reduce LWIR emissions, but they would assign a ridiculously low figure, like 31W/m2 (IPCC 1.AR) and yet forget about it right away and still claim GHGs were exclusively responsible..

But with clouds actually warming the planet in total, their positive forcing must outweigh their negative forcing of about 70W/m2. Let us assume some 90W/m2. This shoves off 90W/m2 of a GHE of only 150W/m2. If we furthermore allow for real surface emissivity he have to deduct another 35W/m2, leaving just a remainder of about 25W/m2 that can be attributed to GHGs. That is very little.


Clouds are not a force.


The Parrot Killer
18-11-2019 22:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12771)
Leitwolf wrote:
Ok, I guess this is another interesting detail. I just developed procedures to read out and categorize the altitude of reported clouds. It is a piece of information that I omitted so far for simplicity, but finally I was way too curious. I was surprised to learn there actually are some records reporting clouds well above 12.000ft. However, the policy is not to do so, and so the amount of data is quite thin in this regard. Anyhow..

More important is the basic problem, that we believe (not just me) that clouds will have more positive forcing the higher up they are. Due this the ceiling of 12.000ft will necessarily make clouds look colder than they are. Or to be more accurate, it makes cloudless skies look warmer than they are. I mean an OVC sky is an OVC sky, regardless how far the clouds may reach up. CLR skies however can actually be OVC above 12.000ft, and yet be reported as CLR. The logic suggests, that these high clouds come with very high temperatures and thus strongly distort the statistic.

For that reason reading both reported altitude of clouds in OVC scenarios and plotting them against average temperatures should give some revealing answers.

Chart1 gives the data for the total sample (2000 stations 2016 + 2017). Note: data quality is only good up to 12(.000ft). Above that only few data points show a small, but reasonable sample size (like 15, 20, 25..), which is indicated by grey scale.

As we can see, the higher up the reported cloud cover is, the higher the temperature, confirming what has been said before. However we may have a strong latitude bias. The warmer it is, the higher the troposphere and thus clouds may reach higher as well. For this reason Chart2 only shows stations located at <35° latitude.

And finally Chart3 restricts the analysis to tropical stations only.

As we can see, all charts show a strong positive correlation between cloud altitude and temperature, confirming that clouds indeed show even more warming at higher altitudes. Given that these data generally omit high altitude clouds, with few exceptions only, we definitely have a strong bias undererstimating the total warming by clouds.

Chart1:


Clouds are not energy. No liquid, gas, or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer
20-11-2019 09:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3251)
HarveyH55 wrote:As temperatures rise, more water, and more cooling.
By that logic wouldn't areas of the globe with a lot of rain fall be consistently cooler than those without a lot of rain fall? Yet that is not the case. Water and water vapor allow thermal energy to move, they don't destroy it. So having thermal energy moving around in the atmosphere with the aid of water vapor doesn't mean that the Earth will be cooled overall.

Leitwolf wrote:
2. The concept of a GHE by "back radiation" will not work either, for reasons named above.
Apologies I missed that bit, and it certainly is worth a bit of elaboration since "back radiation" is a hot issue.
Leitwolf wrote:
...GHE theory is ...clouds would ...would not retain any LWIR going out...
What?? I was under the impression clouds are water vapor and that water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas.
Leitwolf wrote:...with clouds actually warming the planet...a remainder of about 25W/m2 that can be attributed to GHGs. That is very little.
So I'm following that this is the very interesting part. The more clouds do the less there is for CO2 to do. Looking at Earth from space you see a lot of clouds. I don't understand how they factor so little into the equation so this is compelling.
Leitwolf wrote:
...clouds indeed show even more warming at higher altitudes.
So why would that be? I swear I read everything and it mostly makes sense I'm just missing why higher clouds would cause more warming than low ones.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Have you considered wind?
If another factor like wind was independent of the cloud variable then in the long run (with enough samples) it would be factored out. The thing that could cause a false conclusion is if they correlate for some reason. But Leitwolf is all over removing possible other factors (like latitude for example).

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
20-11-2019 17:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7037)
tmiddles wrote: By that logic wouldn't areas of the globe with a lot of rain fall be consistently cooler than those without a lot of rain fall?

You are about to explain how this is so.

tmiddles wrote: Yet that is not the case.

Yet you are about to explain how it is.

tmiddles wrote: Water and water vapor allow thermal energy to move, they don't destroy it. So having thermal energy moving around in the atmosphere with the aid of water vapor doesn't mean that the Earth will be cooled overall.

So you are saying that areas of the globe with a lot of rainfall have their thermal energy moved away to somewhere else ... making them consistently cooler than those without a lot of rainfall, yes?

Maybe you can tell Harvey55 that you misspoke.

tmiddles wrote: So I'm following that this is the very interesting part. The more clouds do the less there is for CO2 to do.

What does CO2 do? Does it increase earth's average global temperature?


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-11-2019 22:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12771)
tmiddles wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
2. The concept of a GHE by "back radiation" will not work either, for reasons named above.
Apologies I missed that bit, and it certainly is worth a bit of elaboration since "back radiation" is a hot issue.

* You can't heat a warmer object with a colder one.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
...GHE theory is ...clouds would ...would not retain any LWIR going out...
What?? I was under the impression clouds are water vapor and that water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas.

Clouds are not water vapor. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:...with clouds actually warming the planet...a remainder of about 25W/m2 that can be attributed to GHGs. That is very little.
So I'm following that this is the very interesting part. The more clouds do the less there is for CO2 to do. Looking at Earth from space you see a lot of clouds. I don't understand how they factor so little into the equation so this is compelling.

The factor is zero...the same as CO2.
tmiddles wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
...clouds indeed show even more warming at higher altitudes.
So why would that be? I swear I read everything and it mostly makes sense I'm just missing why higher clouds would cause more warming than low ones.

They don't.
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Have you considered wind?
If another factor like wind was independent of the cloud variable then in the long run (with enough samples) it would be factored out. The thing that could cause a false conclusion is if they correlate for some reason. But Leitwolf is all over removing possible other factors (like latitude for example).

Nah. He's just flat wrong.


The Parrot Killer
21-11-2019 02:36
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2056)
Kind of funny, but we've been experience the wind cooling for a week or so. Mostly, it only gets cold in Florida, when cold air blows down from up north (bastards). It doesn't generally last very long. During the summer months though, we have a pretty much a daily storm event, from the sea breeze we get blowing across the state, from over the Atlantic and the Gulf. Most definite cooling effect, even if we don't get a lot of rain.
21-11-2019 06:35
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
Well, I adressed the basic issue in this thread on the 16th of August. There are in fact 2 competing "GHE" models. One is based on "back radiation", the other one is based on the altitude of the photosphere and the adiabatic lapse rate as explained in this video..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFOuoD3aHw

The latter one is basically correct and also does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The common failure is to not see the contradiction of these 2 theories. And of course, as most people only reflect on theory #1, they think they have falsified the GHE by falsifying that false theory. Well..

I mean that problem truely expands to the "top notch" experts like Dr. Roy Spencer f.i., who posted a FLIR image of the sky (showing "back radiation") as a proof for the GHE. He has not really understood the physics. The same is true for Prof. Merrifield (in the video) who fails to see the obvious issue: how could clouds not raise the photosphere?

So I'm following that this is the very interesting part. The more clouds do the less there is for CO2 to do. Looking at Earth from space you see a lot of clouds. I don't understand how they factor so little into the equation so this is compelling.


Because everyone is an idiot, especially "experts". The more they believe to know, the blinder they become.

So why would that be? I swear I read everything and it mostly makes sense I'm just missing why higher clouds would cause more warming than low ones.


This fact is actually well accepted. There are a lot of papers dealing with global warming due to contrails, but it is not very popular with activists since it diverts (and actuallly brings up an obvious alternative) from CO2. There are different explanations as to why high altitude clouds warm the planet (more) than low clouds, and some of which are non sense.

The truth however is: the higher the cloud, the more it raises the photosphere. Period.
21-11-2019 18:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7037)
Leitwolf wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFOuoD3aHw

The latter one is basically correct and also does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I watched the video. He's wrong.

1) The speaker opens the video by first expressing his hope to get the viewer(s) to believe in a Greenhouse Effect. A major red flag that we're in for a religious sermon.

2) The speaker claims to know both the earth's and the moon's average temperature. He does not know this. No human does.

3) He engages in a very un-scientific argument by subjunctive. He claims to know what temperature the earth "should" be, and then claims that "Greenhouse Effect" is the "only explanation" for the difference. It takes a special type of gullible to fall for this.

4) As Leitwolf correctly states, this model does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics because the video happens to be focusing on violating the 1st law of thermodynamics ... by pretending the atmosphere is a second heat source in addition to the sun. You read correctly, the video claims that we have double the energy striking the surface of the earth, the quantity from the sun and an equivalent quantity now provided by Greenhouse Effect. I recommend everyone watch the video and jump right to the 4:39 mark, watch for about a minute and you'll know why you shouldn't watch any more.

5) The speaker in the video does what all warmizombies do and only speak about the freezing side of the moon as "proof" of the earth's Greenhouse Effect keeping us toasty warm ... instead of focusing on the boiling half of the moon that makes earth's atmosphere appear to have a powerful refrigeration effect.

6) On the speaker's planet earth, the atmosphere only decreases in temperature as you increase in altitude. There are no points in which the temperature increases as you increase in altitude.

7) Around the 14:40 mark the speaker transitions to the spiraling catastrophe we are doomed to suffer depending upon that elusive "climate sensitivity" that we can't accurately calculate.

This is not a science video. It is a Church sermon.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-11-2019 06:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3251)
IBdaMann wrote:
So you are saying that areas of the globe with a lot of rainfall have their thermal energy moved away ...
Wha?

Equator = Direct sun, Poles = glancing blow. So the equator is hotter. Now the equator also has a lot of rain so the two certainly don't correlate.
http://www.enviropedia.org.uk/Climate/Rainfall_Patterns.php
"The highest rainfall totals occur near the equator in the tropics,"

Now while all that rain may be DUE to the higher temperatures it's safe to say the rain does not actual cool off the tropics too successfully.

Leitwolf wrote:...the adiabatic lapse rate...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFOuoD3aHw
Really great video! But as you say it does actually include both theories and points out that there is no violation of the 2nd LTD with back radiation.
Leitwolf wrote:The latter one is basically correct and also does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
You imply that back radiance DOES violate the 2nd LTD. Are you saying you think radiance from a cooler object cannot be absorbed by a warmer one? That's certainly not something to skip over.
See at 6:05 as he explains that Back Radiation "...by this mechanism you can actually make the surface of the Earth heat up much more...we haven't broken any laws of physics to do this, various people will say that this breaks the 2nd LTD it really doesn't, you can see all the heat flow here it's always heat is flowing from hotter things to cooler things..."

Leitwolf wrote:the higher the cloud, the more it raises the photosphere. Period.
So in thinking on that I'm wondering is isn't it really the amount of matter available to exchange thermal energy freely that lies below the photosphere that matters? Of course for Earth the density of the atmosphere isn't going to change but you can compare Earth to Venus. So a higher cloud helps "envelope" more gas below the photosphere so there's more thermal storage?

My understanding of the photosphere is is the leap off point for radiance to space. So anything below it is playing hot potato.

IBdaMann wrote:
... the video. He's wrong. 1) ...a religious sermon. 2) Tthe earth's and the moon's average temp...No human does. 4) pretending the atmosphere is a second heat source 5) ...warmizombies 6) ...There are no points in which the temperature increases as you increase in altitude. 7)...It is a Church sermon
Well it's a Church sermon succesfully gobling up your tax money and ruling over you so get a better argument against it.

Pretending we don't know that the Earth is warmer than the Moon is a waste of time so have at it. Radiance is not heat, it isn't even thermal energy, it's light, so saying that radiance is raining down from the gases above us is NOT saying it's a heat source. First of all "Heat source" would have to mean those gases gave more than they took, since heat is the NET FLOW of thermal energy, and they don't. They simply throw a fraction of what they get back.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
22-11-2019 08:05
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
Well, I largely agree with your criticism of Merrifield's statements. He talks a lot of non sense indeed. Most notably he presents both GHE theorys side by side, and does not realize they are contradicting each other, or are simply two different theories. Yet it is kind of an achievement he presents the right theory (though with wrong paramters) at all.

Overall this is the issue with "climate science". You need to be gratefull if someone gets something right at all. It is like in a medieval witch hunt someone considering why she might not be a witch. That thought will be a good idea, though of course short of reality.
22-11-2019 12:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12771)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
So you are saying that areas of the globe with a lot of rainfall have their thermal energy moved away ...
Wha?

Equator = Direct sun, Poles = glancing blow. So the equator is hotter. Now the equator also has a lot of rain so the two certainly don't correlate.
http://www.enviropedia.org.uk/Climate/Rainfall_Patterns.php
"The highest rainfall totals occur near the equator in the tropics,"

Now while all that rain may be DUE to the higher temperatures it's safe to say the rain does not actual cool off the tropics too successfully.

Leitwolf wrote:...the adiabatic lapse rate...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFOuoD3aHw
Really great video! But as you say it does actually include both theories and points out that there is no violation of the 2nd LTD with back radiation.
Leitwolf wrote:The latter one is basically correct and also does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
You imply that back radiance DOES violate the 2nd LTD. Are you saying you think radiance from a cooler object cannot be absorbed by a warmer one? That's certainly not something to skip over.
See at 6:05 as he explains that Back Radiation "...by this mechanism you can actually make the surface of the Earth heat up much more...we haven't broken any laws of physics to do this, various people will say that this breaks the 2nd LTD it really doesn't, you can see all the heat flow here it's always heat is flowing from hotter things to cooler things..."

Leitwolf wrote:the higher the cloud, the more it raises the photosphere. Period.
So in thinking on that I'm wondering is isn't it really the amount of matter available to exchange thermal energy freely that lies below the photosphere that matters? Of course for Earth the density of the atmosphere isn't going to change but you can compare Earth to Venus. So a higher cloud helps "envelope" more gas below the photosphere so there's more thermal storage?

My understanding of the photosphere is is the leap off point for radiance to space. So anything below it is playing hot potato.

IBdaMann wrote:
... the video. He's wrong. 1) ...a religious sermon. 2) Tthe earth's and the moon's average temp...No human does. 4) pretending the atmosphere is a second heat source 5) ...warmizombies 6) ...There are no points in which the temperature increases as you increase in altitude. 7)...It is a Church sermon
Well it's a Church sermon succesfully gobling up your tax money and ruling over you so get a better argument against it.

Pretending we don't know that the Earth is warmer than the Moon is a waste of time so have at it. Radiance is not heat, it isn't even thermal energy, it's light, so saying that radiance is raining down from the gases above us is NOT saying it's a heat source. First of all "Heat source" would have to mean those gases gave more than they took, since heat is the NET FLOW of thermal energy, and they don't. They simply throw a fraction of what they get back.


You can't slow or trap heat. There is no such thing as 'net heat flow'.


The Parrot Killer
22-11-2019 16:25
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3251)
Into the Night wrote:
...There is no such thing as 'net heat flow'.

No there is NET FLOW OF THERMAL ENERGY which is what HEAT is. Stop being dishonest by rewording what I said. Who exactly are you quoting there?

"heat is the NET FLOW of thermal energy, " is what I said. Get it right.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
22-11-2019 18:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12771)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
...There is no such thing as 'net heat flow'.

No there is NET FLOW OF THERMAL ENERGY which is what HEAT is. Stop being dishonest by rewording what I said. Who exactly are you quoting there?

"heat is the NET FLOW of thermal energy, " is what I said. Get it right.

No such thing as 'net flow of heat'.

RDCF. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
23-11-2019 00:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3251)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
...There is no such thing as 'net heat flow'.

No there is NET FLOW OF THERMAL ENERGY which is what HEAT is. Stop being dishonest by rewording what I said. Who exactly are you quoting there?

"heat is the NET FLOW of thermal energy, " is what I said. Get it right.

No such thing as 'net flow of heat'.

RDCF. RQAA.


You are quoting yourself.

I said "NET FLOW OF THERMAL ENERGY"
23-11-2019 05:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12771)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
...There is no such thing as 'net heat flow'.

No there is NET FLOW OF THERMAL ENERGY which is what HEAT is. Stop being dishonest by rewording what I said. Who exactly are you quoting there?

"heat is the NET FLOW of thermal energy, " is what I said. Get it right.

No such thing as 'net flow of heat'.

RDCF. RQAA.


You are quoting yourself.

I said "NET FLOW OF THERMAL ENERGY"

The flow of thermal energy is called 'heat'. There is no such thing as 'net flow' of heat.


The Parrot Killer
23-11-2019 05:35
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3251)
Into the Night wrote:
The flow of thermal energy is called 'heat'. There is no such thing as 'net flow' of heat.


The ABSOLUTELY IS a NET FLOW OF THERMAL ENERGY though. Heat is the difference.

So if I'm in a room and I give up 700 watts and absorb only 600 watts, the net flow of thermal energy is 100 watts out of my body. I am a heat source to the room and the heat I'm generating is 100 watts.
Edited on 23-11-2019 05:35
23-11-2019 05:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7037)
tmiddles wrote: the heat I'm generating is 100 watts.

So now "energy" means power.

From The MANUAL:

Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "friction," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "radiance," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-11-2019 18:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12771)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The flow of thermal energy is called 'heat'. There is no such thing as 'net flow' of heat.


The ABSOLUTELY IS a NET FLOW OF THERMAL ENERGY though. Heat is the difference.

Redefinition fallacy (heat<->thermal energy). RDCF. There is no such thing as 'net heat'.
tmiddles wrote:
So if I'm in a room and I give up 700 watts and absorb only 600 watts, the net flow of thermal energy is 100 watts out of my body. I am a heat source to the room and the heat I'm generating is 100 watts.

Redefinition fallacy (heat<->thermal energy, power<->thermal energy). RDCF.

Energy is not measured in watts.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 23-11-2019 18:14
27-11-2019 11:18
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3251)
Into the Night wrote:
Redefinition fallacy (heat<->thermal energy, power<->thermal energy).
Define heat and explain how it's the same thing as thermal energy since you like to mix up the two words.
27-11-2019 17:17
James___
★★★★★
(2825)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The flow of thermal energy is called 'heat'. There is no such thing as 'net flow' of heat.


The ABSOLUTELY IS a NET FLOW OF THERMAL ENERGY though. Heat is the difference.

Redefinition fallacy (heat<->thermal energy). RDCF. There is no such thing as 'net heat'.
.



Technically speaking there is a "net heat". Subtract all of the work in transporting the fuel as well as what it took to have it available for transport. Then the value left over can be considered as "net heat".
It's like if you cut down a tree for firewood. It takes energy to get to the tree and energy to cut it down. Then it takes more energy to cut it into chord length and to split it.
Then it has to be taken home and stacked. When all of that energy is subtracted from the heat produced from burning that wood, that value could be considered as "net heat".
Page 2 of 7<1234>>>





Join the debate Clouds are warming Earth, not (so much) GHGs:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Do CO2 Emissions Create More Clouds?12419-01-2020 23:09
Experts reveal that clouds have moderated warming triggered by climate change1006-11-2019 23:54
High CO2 levels can destabilize marine layer clouds106-03-2019 22:01
High carbon dioxide could suppress cooling clouds, climate change model warns127-02-2019 20:54
Clouds and temperature3601-02-2018 20:48
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact