Remember me
▼ Content

Funny Numbers


Funny Numbers09-02-2017 21:00
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/perspective/9574/five-things-know-about-carbon-dioxide

There are two important things to get from this paper: that before 1960 or so that CO2 was more or less stable. It would cycle slightly from winter to summer. But it was stable.

The claim is that man is placing 30 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

If you look at the chart you will see that the growth in the atmospheric CO2 is pretty much a straight line. So we can make a base assumption that the total increase in CO2 is due to man's intervention.
--------------------------
According to wikipedia (CO2):

As of January 2007, the earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration is about 0.0383% by volume (383 ppmv) or 0.0582% by weight. This represents about 2.996×1012 tonnes, and is estimated to be 105 ppm (37.77%) above the pre-industrial average.
-------------------------

Using these numbers we can calculate the added atmospheric CO2 since 1960 until today using that 90 ppm figure and the 57 years of growth:

1,000 kg = 1 tonne = 2206 lbs = 1.103 tons (US)

The atmosphere weighs 5.1480×10^18 kg or 5.148 x 10^15 tonnes

If CO2 = 406 ppm that is .0406% or 209 v 10^12 tonnes/

Of this the portion attributable to man is 406 ppm - 310 ppm = 94 ppm. 406/94 = 23% growth over 57 years or 4% per year.

This is equal to 8.36 x 10^12 tonnes or 9.22 x 10^12 tons per year.

So where are the numbers of between 30 and 50 gigatons per year coming from?

Also - the major greenhouse "gas" is atmospheric H2O which absorbs 95% of the Emissions from the Sun and the majority of the emissions from the Earth.

This means that OTHER "greenhouse gases" compose only 5% of the problem areas. And CO2 is only 4% or so of that 5%. 96% of that CO2 is naturally occurring so only 4% of 4% of the CO2 is man-made - or .0016% of the atmosphere. And the 94 ppm growth is only 25% of that or .0004%.

Where am I making a mistake in my math that shows that the idea of man-made global warming is pretty distant?
09-02-2017 22:49
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
The atmosphere weighs 5.1480×10^18 kg or 5.148 x 10^15 tonnes

If CO2 = 406 ppm that is .0406% or 209 v 10^12 tonnes/

Your calculation is riddled with mistakes, both conceptual and arithmetic.

The first one is that .0406% of 5.148 x 10^15 tonnes is 209 x 10^10 tonnes, not 209 x 10^12 tonnes.

I'll give you, or others, chance to find the rest.
10-02-2017 16:21
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs:.... you will see that the growth in the atmospheric CO2 is pretty much a straight line.

You can't interpret your own graph properly. It ain't no straight line. Then, you play with your calculations (a little here, a little there) to screw your results up. Not just in this thread, but other threads, too.
Edited on 10-02-2017 16:23
10-02-2017 20:52
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]Surface Detail wrote:Your calculation is riddled with mistakes, both conceptual and arithmetic.

Its calculations AREN'T mistakes. It does them purposefully. Note that all its numbers are biased to end in results it wants.
10-02-2017 23:24
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The atmosphere weighs 5.1480×10^18 kg or 5.148 x 10^15 tonnes

If CO2 = 406 ppm that is .0406% or 209 v 10^12 tonnes/

Your calculation is riddled with mistakes, both conceptual and arithmetic.

The first one is that .0406% of 5.148 x 10^15 tonnes is 209 x 10^10 tonnes, not 209 x 10^12 tonnes.

I'll give you, or others, chance to find the rest.


Well I admire your willingness to prove that my numbers were two orders of magnitude too high so man contributes even less CO2.
10-02-2017 23:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The atmosphere weighs 5.1480×10^18 kg or 5.148 x 10^15 tonnes

If CO2 = 406 ppm that is .0406% or 209 v 10^12 tonnes/

Your calculation is riddled with mistakes, both conceptual and arithmetic.

The first one is that .0406% of 5.148 x 10^15 tonnes is 209 x 10^10 tonnes, not 209 x 10^12 tonnes.

I'll give you, or others, chance to find the rest.


But let's write this out in arithmetic notations so that you can understand it:

The total weight of the atmosphere is:

5,148.000,000,000,000

So .0406% of that is:

209,008,800,000,000

Now how is it that you are getting 10^10th out of that? Is this arithmetic thingy a little too difficult in the 7th year in kindergarten?

Still waiting for your answer.
Edited on 10-02-2017 23:37
10-02-2017 23:55
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The atmosphere weighs 5.1480×10^18 kg or 5.148 x 10^15 tonnes

If CO2 = 406 ppm that is .0406% or 209 v 10^12 tonnes/

Your calculation is riddled with mistakes, both conceptual and arithmetic.

The first one is that .0406% of 5.148 x 10^15 tonnes is 209 x 10^10 tonnes, not 209 x 10^12 tonnes.

I'll give you, or others, chance to find the rest.


But overlooking it I do see I made a math error. I said that 23%/57yrs was 4% per year when that should have been 0.4% per year.

This means that I made an order of magnitude OVERESTIMATE of the amount of CO2 that man is adding to the atmosphere.

This means that the estimate is now 836 x 10^9 tonnes or 925 x 10^9 tons.

So precisely HOW do we calculate the added CO2 to the atmosphere from actual measurement to be less than 1 gigaton per year while we're being told by the global warmies that it is between 30 and 50 times that large?

Still waiting to discover how you can somehow get 10^10th. But appreciative for making me look at the numbers again and show it to be an order of magnitude smaller.
11-02-2017 01:00
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The atmosphere weighs 5.1480×10^18 kg or 5.148 x 10^15 tonnes

If CO2 = 406 ppm that is .0406% or 209 v 10^12 tonnes/

Your calculation is riddled with mistakes, both conceptual and arithmetic.

The first one is that .0406% of 5.148 x 10^15 tonnes is 209 x 10^10 tonnes, not 209 x 10^12 tonnes.

I'll give you, or others, chance to find the rest.


But let's write this out in arithmetic notations so that you can understand it:

The total weight of the atmosphere is:

5,148.000,000,000,000

So .0406% of that is:

209,008,800,000,000

Now how is it that you are getting 10^10th out of that? Is this arithmetic thingy a little too difficult in the 7th year in kindergarten?

Still waiting for your answer.

You just multiplied by .0406 and forgot about the % sign.

.0406 of 5,148,000,000,000,000 is 209,008,800,000,000
.0406% of 5,148,000,000,000,000 is 2,090,088,000,000

There's nothing wrong with making a mistake; we all do from time to time, and smart people try to learn from their mistakes. It's your failure to acknowledge mistakes, even when they're pointed out to you, that makes you an idiot.
11-02-2017 02:41
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The atmosphere weighs 5.1480×10^18 kg or 5.148 x 10^15 tonnes

If CO2 = 406 ppm that is .0406% or 209 v 10^12 tonnes/

Your calculation is riddled with mistakes, both conceptual and arithmetic.

The first one is that .0406% of 5.148 x 10^15 tonnes is 209 x 10^10 tonnes, not 209 x 10^12 tonnes.

I'll give you, or others, chance to find the rest.


But let's write this out in arithmetic notations so that you can understand it:

The total weight of the atmosphere is:

5,148.000,000,000,000

So .0406% of that is:

209,008,800,000,000

Now how is it that you are getting 10^10th out of that? Is this arithmetic thingy a little too difficult in the 7th year in kindergarten?

Still waiting for your answer.

You just multiplied by .0406 and forgot about the % sign.

.0406 of 5,148,000,000,000,000 is 209,008,800,000,000
.0406% of 5,148,000,000,000,000 is 2,090,088,000,000

There's nothing wrong with making a mistake; we all do from time to time, and smart people try to learn from their mistakes. It's your failure to acknowledge mistakes, even when they're pointed out to you, that makes you an idiot.

Since your posts on other threads indicate that you still don't appear to have grasped this:

2,090,088,000,000 = 209 x 10^10, not the 209 x 10^12 that you stated.

It would, of course, be more properly written as 2.09 x 10^12.
11-02-2017 02:44
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
The atmosphere weighs 5.1480×10^18 kg or 5.148 x 10^15 tonnes

If CO2 = 406 ppm that is .0406% or 209 v 10^12 tonnes/

Your calculation is riddled with mistakes, both conceptual and arithmetic.

The first one is that .0406% of 5.148 x 10^15 tonnes is 209 x 10^10 tonnes, not 209 x 10^12 tonnes.

I'll give you, or others, chance to find the rest.


But let's write this out in arithmetic notations so that you can understand it:

The total weight of the atmosphere is:

5,148.000,000,000,000

So .0406% of that is:

209,008,800,000,000

Now how is it that you are getting 10^10th out of that? Is this arithmetic thingy a little too difficult in the 7th year in kindergarten?

Still waiting for your answer.

You just multiplied by .0406 and forgot about the % sign.

.0406 of 5,148,000,000,000,000 is 209,008,800,000,000
.0406% of 5,148,000,000,000,000 is 2,090,088,000,000

There's nothing wrong with making a mistake; we all do from time to time, and smart people try to learn from their mistakes. It's your failure to acknowledge mistakes, even when they're pointed out to you, that makes you an idiot.


Great, so now you're saying that my mistake dropped the addition of CO2 by ANOTHER two orders of magnitude. This is why I asked people to check my math since these sorts of mistakes occur.

So THAT would mean - the TOTAL increase in atmospheric CO2 per year is 9.25 x 10^9 tons. And since 96.8% of CO2 is naturally occurring that means that the TOTAL addition of man's contribution is:

.032 x 10^9 = 2.96 x 10^8 or only about one third of a billion tons per year.

So then answer me this: Why are we being told by NASA that man alone is adding 50 quadrillion tons every year?

You claim that my calculations are based upon "conceptual" errors. Now is the time to pony up. Exactly what conceptual error is there?

Or are you going to come up with your crying game where you tell us all that MOST of the CO2 that is generated is absorbed back naturally so it is only the overage of man that is causing the entire growth?

Sorry that won't work because the heat was rising LONG (74 years) before the CO2 was increasing at any significant rates proving that CO2 increases follow heating. And that suggests that heating interferes with the natural rotation of CO2 in the environment.
11-02-2017 03:04
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
OK, let's move on now that you've finally admitted that particular error.

Let's look at this statement next:

Also - the major greenhouse "gas" is atmospheric H2O which absorbs 95% of the Emissions from the Sun and the majority of the emissions from the Earth.

What makes you think that H2O absorbs 95% of the emissions from the sun? According to, for example, the source below, only 20% of the incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, while another 22% is reflected by the atmosphere.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS14/14EVM-5.html


Where did you get 95% from?
Edited on 11-02-2017 03:04
12-02-2017 01:55
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
OK, let's move on now that you've finally admitted that particular error.

Let's look at this statement next:

Also - the major greenhouse "gas" is atmospheric H2O which absorbs 95% of the Emissions from the Sun and the majority of the emissions from the Earth.

What makes you think that H2O absorbs 95% of the emissions from the sun? According to, for example, the source below, only 20% of the incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, while another 22% is reflected by the atmosphere.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS14/14EVM-5.html


Where did you get 95% from?


We all know how much you love really simple and mindless grade school explanations but try this out:

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/absorption.gif

If you actually observe the spectra and the amount of energy absorbed and compare it to the other gases you could learn something.

It is also extremely important for you to understand that the absorption and emission bells are out of scale. The Sun's emissions are around 100 times greater than the Earth's.

You can ALSO see that the lines of CO2 are ALSO those of nitrous oxide which is a naturally occurring gas of which most comes from bacterial generation in oceans. So the one line of CO2 which MIGHT be accused of absorption of energy in an area where there is in fact only a minor constituent of energy available to it.

If you want to learn anything try:

http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/pubs/shining/chap3.html

http://civil.iisc.ernet.in/~nagesh/rs_docs/Energyf.pdf

shows the areas in which the emission of the sun are mostly blocked. And that is (Great balls of fire) at the other point where CO2 could possibly be absorbed.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_02.php

Shows that the majority of energy is absorbed by both H20 and O2. They don't even bother to mention CO2 because it is of such minor addition.

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/03_abs_emiss_ref.pdf

Remember when we went through the Raleigh Scattering and I said that Blue Light was scattered almost completely differently from other frequencies?

"Consequently, blue light scatters about 5.5 more than red light. It is apparent that the λ-4 law causes more of the blue light to be scattered than the red, the green, and the yellow, and so the sky, when viewed away from the sun's disk, appears blue."

I would have thought this plain as the blue sky but apparently not.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/infodata/lesson_plans/Teacher%20Background%20Information-%20The%20Earth's%20Radiative%20Heat%20Budget.pdf

Is a little plainer explanation of the kindergarten variety that you have shown.

Firstly you will see that some 28% of the Sun's emissions are reflect back ot into space.

The FINAL paragraph in that paper is most telling: what they are saying is that virtually NONE of the Sun's emissions that strike the ground escape back to space. The importance of that is that CO2 is a non-issue. And H2O and O2 and O are the absorbers du jour.
Edited on 12-02-2017 01:57
12-02-2017 19:19
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
[b]Surface Detail wrote: Where did you get 95% from?


Tell you what. At least the only reason that we don't have a sensible discussion is that you appear to be only in this to attack. You don't appear to be dumb but only politicized to the leftist view. Environmentalism is useless without some effective actions being able to be taken.

Why are you even bothering to argue about CO2 one way or the other when even if it DID have some effect that we could do nothing about it. And I mean NOTHING. China didn't join the IPCC for good reasons and the result of the stupid environmentalism in the USA is the export of all of the CO2 generation to China.

Even worse, the carbon PARTICLE emissions of the Chinese industry DOES have a measureable effect. So centralizing the production of so much energy in China actually is harming the climate.

Why would you argue that you cannot use spectroscopy to identify 14C when separating 12C from 13C through spectroscopy is a common form of astronomical exploration of the universe? What's more we know the differences in the ratios of 13N to 14N quite closely and if man-made CO2 was as significant as they claim these ratios would change rather dramatically.

We have an energy budget forced upon us by the population of this world and it's growing lifestyles of the countries like India that is attempting to bring EVERYONE into at least a lower middle class.

Your belief that somehow you should FIGHT this with the false belief that the world will change at your command is rather foolish. Perhaps you can grow up and we can have a discussion rather than this continuous challenging everything from a position of almost total ignorance and taking anything and everything from a position that the world is doomed without your help.
12-02-2017 20:21
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
OK, let's move on now that you've finally admitted that particular error.

Let's look at this statement next:

Also - the major greenhouse "gas" is atmospheric H2O which absorbs 95% of the Emissions from the Sun and the majority of the emissions from the Earth.

What makes you think that H2O absorbs 95% of the emissions from the sun? According to, for example, the source below, only 20% of the incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, while another 22% is reflected by the atmosphere.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS14/14EVM-5.html


Where did you get 95% from?


We all know how much you love really simple and mindless grade school explanations but try this out:

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/absorption.gif

If you actually observe the spectra and the amount of energy absorbed and compare it to the other gases you could learn something.

It is also extremely important for you to understand that the absorption and emission bells are out of scale. The Sun's emissions are around 100 times greater than the Earth's.

You can ALSO see that the lines of CO2 are ALSO those of nitrous oxide which is a naturally occurring gas of which most comes from bacterial generation in oceans. So the one line of CO2 which MIGHT be accused of absorption of energy in an area where there is in fact only a minor constituent of energy available to it.

If you want to learn anything try:

http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/pubs/shining/chap3.html

http://civil.iisc.ernet.in/~nagesh/rs_docs/Energyf.pdf

shows the areas in which the emission of the sun are mostly blocked. And that is (Great balls of fire) at the other point where CO2 could possibly be absorbed.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_02.php

Shows that the majority of energy is absorbed by both H20 and O2. They don't even bother to mention CO2 because it is of such minor addition.

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/library/coursefiles/03_abs_emiss_ref.pdf

Remember when we went through the Raleigh Scattering and I said that Blue Light was scattered almost completely differently from other frequencies?

"Consequently, blue light scatters about 5.5 more than red light. It is apparent that the λ-4 law causes more of the blue light to be scattered than the red, the green, and the yellow, and so the sky, when viewed away from the sun's disk, appears blue."

I would have thought this plain as the blue sky but apparently not.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/infodata/lesson_plans/Teacher%20Background%20Information-%20The%20Earth's%20Radiative%20Heat%20Budget.pdf

Is a little plainer explanation of the kindergarten variety that you have shown.

Firstly you will see that some 28% of the Sun's emissions are reflect back ot into space.

The FINAL paragraph in that paper is most telling: what they are saying is that virtually NONE of the Sun's emissions that strike the ground escape back to space. The importance of that is that CO2 is a non-issue. And H2O and O2 and O are the absorbers du jour.

While your inability to comprehend scientific papers is entertaining, you still haven't explained why you think that atmospheric H2O absorbs 95% of the emissions from the sun. Where did you get this figure from, or how did you calculate it?
14-02-2017 02:08
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
[b]Surface Detail wrote:
While your inability to comprehend scientific papers is entertaining, you still haven't explained why you think that atmospheric H2O absorbs 95% of the emissions from the sun. Where did you get this figure from, or how did you calculate it?


And you haven't YET given me your credentials to even mention the word "science".

The 95% figure is from a paper:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_9241.htm

If you want to read about how greenhouse gas CO2 and NO are try:

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

This is one of those papers that the Warmies insisted proved AGW.

"CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space."

http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/ir-spectra-houghton.png

The text is instructive enough but the chart also shows what I've been saying all along.
14-02-2017 10:20
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote:
While your inability to comprehend scientific papers is entertaining, you still haven't explained why you think that atmospheric H2O absorbs 95% of the emissions from the sun. Where did you get this figure from, or how did you calculate it?

The 95% figure is from a paper:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_9241.htm

Nowhere in that "paper" is it stated that atmospheric H2O absorbs 95% of the emissions from the sun. Which isn't surprising, given you you simply made it up.

As I've already shown you, some 58% of the sun's radiation makes it to the ground. Only about 42% is absorbed or reflected by the atmosphere and clouds. It is therefore complete nonsense to state that atmospheric H2O absorbs 95% of the emissions from the sun.

Why your obsession with credentials? As Into The Night said, we don't care about credentials here. It is the quality of our arguments that is important. As it happens, I have a PhD in Plasma Physics, but that's completely irrelevant to our discussion.

Now, which of your lies shall we unpick next?
14-02-2017 18:20
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote:
While your inability to comprehend scientific papers is entertaining, you still haven't explained why you think that atmospheric H2O absorbs 95% of the emissions from the sun. Where did you get this figure from, or how did you calculate it?

The 95% figure is from a paper:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_9241.htm

Nowhere in that "paper" is it stated that atmospheric H2O absorbs 95% of the emissions from the sun. Which isn't surprising, given you you simply made it up.

As I've already shown you, some 58% of the sun's radiation makes it to the ground. Only about 42% is absorbed or reflected by the atmosphere and clouds. It is therefore complete nonsense to state that atmospheric H2O absorbs 95% of the emissions from the sun.

Why your obsession with credentials? As Into The Night said, we don't care about credentials here. It is the quality of our arguments that is important. As it happens, I have a PhD in Plasma Physics, but that's completely irrelevant to our discussion.

Now, which of your lies shall we unpick next?


Just out of curiosity did you read the part which stated, "Put another way, 99.88% of the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions from human activity."?

Did you read the other references that stated that the levels of energy in the absorbance bands of CO2 was so low that it was 100% absorbed by pre-industrial levels of CO2 and hence any addition of CO2 had no effect?

There was a paper written about the sources of CO2 in the atmosphere and last night I was simply too tired to read it fully. But another flamer had posted elsewhere that the author of this paper - a man working for NASA - had called him up to correct his numbers from 30 gigatons of CO2 to 40 gigatons of CO2 man was exhausting into the atmosphere each year.

I sent him an email with my calculations showing that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere itself were three orders of magnitude below that and will await his response. If he is claiming that there is a natural reservoir for this CO2 that is filling you and your side are in very big trouble.
Edited on 14-02-2017 18:27
14-02-2017 18:35
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
I sent him an email with my calculations...


14-02-2017 18:40
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Just out of curiosity did you read the part which stated, "Put another way, 99.88% of the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions from human activity."?

Yes. It's total nonsense. This isn't a scientific paper (the Melbourne Rotary Club isn't an academic journal); it's a piece of anti-science propaganda. Why do swallow crap like this?
15-02-2017 00:00
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Just out of curiosity did you read the part which stated, "Put another way, 99.88% of the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions from human activity."?

Yes. It's total nonsense. This isn't a scientific paper (the Melbourne Rotary Club isn't an academic journal); it's a piece of anti-science propaganda. Why do swallow crap like this?


You have just posted a kindergarten display of the energy balance of Earth and you are incapable of explaining it. So do not tell me what is science and what isn't.
15-02-2017 00:06
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Just out of curiosity did you read the part which stated, "Put another way, 99.88% of the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions from human activity."?

Yes. It's total nonsense. This isn't a scientific paper (the Melbourne Rotary Club isn't an academic journal); it's a piece of anti-science propaganda. Why do swallow crap like this?


You have just posted a kindergarten display of the energy balance of Earth and you are incapable of explaining it. So do not tell me what is science and what isn't.

No, it is you who appears incapable of understanding even this simple diagram. Or are you still claiming that 95% of solar emissions are absorbed by atmospheric H2O?
15-02-2017 00:51
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Just out of curiosity did you read the part which stated, "Put another way, 99.88% of the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions from human activity."?

Yes. It's total nonsense. This isn't a scientific paper (the Melbourne Rotary Club isn't an academic journal); it's a piece of anti-science propaganda. Why do swallow crap like this?


You have just posted a kindergarten display of the energy balance of Earth and you are incapable of explaining it. So do not tell me what is science and what isn't.

No, it is you who appears incapable of understanding even this simple diagram. Or are you still claiming that 95% of solar emissions are absorbed by atmospheric H2O?


OK, the energy emitted from the Earth is 7% thermals, 23% evaporation and 114% radiation. Since only 49% of the Sun's emissions ever got to the ground how do you suppose that 144% of it is leaving?
15-02-2017 00:56
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Just out of curiosity did you read the part which stated, "Put another way, 99.88% of the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions from human activity."?

Yes. It's total nonsense. This isn't a scientific paper (the Melbourne Rotary Club isn't an academic journal); it's a piece of anti-science propaganda. Why do swallow crap like this?


You have just posted a kindergarten display of the energy balance of Earth and you are incapable of explaining it. So do not tell me what is science and what isn't.

No, it is you who appears incapable of understanding even this simple diagram. Or are you still claiming that 95% of solar emissions are absorbed by atmospheric H2O?


OK, the energy emitted from the Earth is 7% thermals, 23% evaporation and 114% radiation. Since only 49% of the Sun's emissions ever got to the ground how do you suppose that 144% of it is leaving?

You've forgotten the 95% back radiation from the atmosphere.
15-02-2017 19:24
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:

OK, the energy emitted from the Earth is 7% thermals, 23% evaporation and 114% radiation. Since only 49% of the Sun's emissions ever got to the ground how do you suppose that 144% of it is leaving?

You've forgotten the 95% back radiation from the atmosphere.[/quote]

I've forgotten nothing and I'm waiting for you to describe how these numbers make any sense to you. That is unless "You've forgotten the 95% back radiation from the atmosphere." can be plainly explained by you.
15-02-2017 19:46
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:

OK, the energy emitted from the Earth is 7% thermals, 23% evaporation and 114% radiation. Since only 49% of the Sun's emissions ever got to the ground how do you suppose that 144% of it is leaving?

You've forgotten the 95% back radiation from the atmosphere.


I've forgotten nothing and I'm waiting for you to describe how these numbers make any sense to you. That is unless "You've forgotten the 95% back radiation from the atmosphere." can be plainly explained by you.

Look at the diagram again.

Energy absorbed by Earth = solar radiation (49%) + back radiation (95%) = 144%

Energy leaving Earth = surface radiation (114%) + thermals (7%) + evaporation (23%) = 144%

So, at equilibrium, energy absorbed by Earth = energy leaving Earth.

Actually, though, the back radiation is a fraction of a percent more nowadays because of the increased level of greenhouse gases. This is why the Earth is warming and will continue to do so until the surface radiation is again sufficient to maintain equilibrium.
15-02-2017 20:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:

OK, the energy emitted from the Earth is 7% thermals, 23% evaporation and 114% radiation. Since only 49% of the Sun's emissions ever got to the ground how do you suppose that 144% of it is leaving?

You've forgotten the 95% back radiation from the atmosphere.


I've forgotten nothing and I'm waiting for you to describe how these numbers make any sense to you. That is unless "You've forgotten the 95% back radiation from the atmosphere." can be plainly explained by you.

Look at the diagram again.

Energy absorbed by Earth = solar radiation (49%) + back radiation (95%) = 144%

Energy leaving Earth = surface radiation (114%) + thermals (7%) + evaporation (23%) = 144%

So, at equilibrium, energy absorbed by Earth = energy leaving Earth.

Actually, though, the back radiation is a fraction of a percent more nowadays because of the increased level of greenhouse gases. This is why the Earth is warming and will continue to do so until the surface radiation is again sufficient to maintain equilibrium.


Look at the random numbers again. They're TRUE!


The Parrot Killer
15-02-2017 20:52
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:

OK, the energy emitted from the Earth is 7% thermals, 23% evaporation and 114% radiation. Since only 49% of the Sun's emissions ever got to the ground how do you suppose that 144% of it is leaving?

You've forgotten the 95% back radiation from the atmosphere.


I've forgotten nothing and I'm waiting for you to describe how these numbers make any sense to you. That is unless "You've forgotten the 95% back radiation from the atmosphere." can be plainly explained by you.

Look at the diagram again.

Energy absorbed by Earth = solar radiation (49%) + back radiation (95%) = 144%

Energy leaving Earth = surface radiation (114%) + thermals (7%) + evaporation (23%) = 144%

So, at equilibrium, energy absorbed by Earth = energy leaving Earth.

Actually, though, the back radiation is a fraction of a percent more nowadays because of the increased level of greenhouse gases. This is why the Earth is warming and will continue to do so until the surface radiation is again sufficient to maintain equilibrium.


Let's go through this from the start:

The Earth has an energy balance when it reaches a certain temperature so that energy in equals energy out.

In order to achieve this balance the entire land and atmosphere are involved in warming to the point where eventually all of the energy of the Sun impinging on the Earth is either reflected or radiated.

The atmosphere through a number of mechanisms absorbs or reflects via several manners over half of the energy striking the Earth. O2 absorbs the majority of the UV and re-radiates it in all directions. Since the atmosphere has such a large percentage of O2 most of it ends up back in space.

The 46% of the Sun's emissions that do strike the Earth that DO get absorbed are about 60% on oceans. This causes evaporative cooling and some 40% of this is carried eventually into the upper atmosphere and radiated into space. The solar radiation almost entirely now in the visible spectrum that strike the Earth and aren't immediately reflected back into space (this energy got to the Earth in the first place because it's spectrum was in open spots of the atmosphere's absorption spectrum) So some 9% is simply reflected back out into space. Most of it hits surfaces that do not directly reflect this energy but is warmed from which it then emits in the infrared spectrum.

Sunlight contains almost no energy in the bands in which CO2 absorbs at and the Earth's IR emissions contain the bands that CO2 so far down the upper side of the bell curve that it too doesn't contain any energy for CO2 to absorb.

Some are arguing that CO2 uses totally different mechanisms to cause greenhouse effect but it is so convoluted that it cannot be proven. Others argue that since there is so little energy in the bands of CO2 absorption that any amount of CO2 over the amount that absorbs that entire energy does nothing at all. And that amount is in the very low 100 ppm.

So the energy that strikes the earth leaves as:

8% backscatter mostly from Raleigh scattering, 17% from direct reflections off of stratospheric clouds, 6% from direct reflection from Earth surfaces in the visible bands, 9% in the IR bands that have no barrier through atmospheric absorption, 40% emissions from all of the atmospheric gases including H2O in gaseous form and 20% emitted after being absorbed by low level clouds.

If you add these together you get 100% without that silly kindergarten display that makes little to no sense. Arguing about climate change when you don't understand the mechanisms involved isn't going to get you anywhere.

The ONLY way for the climate to have been heating is by increased energy output of the Sun (sunspot cycles) and/or the Earth being closer to the Sun due to Milankovitch Cycles.

What's more if you consider the energy balance you would note that it is a negative feedback loop and more stratospheric clouds form and reflect more of the Sun's energy if there is additional heating of the Earth.

I should add that at the moment the part of the Milankovitch Cycle we are presently in has the northern hemisphere pointing more directly at the Sun. This hemisphere is composed of far more land surface which means that there would be more absorption and conversion to IR which takes a longer time to work it's way out of the atmosphere.
Edited on 15-02-2017 21:07
16-02-2017 04:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
Wake wrote:

Let's go through this from the start:

The Earth has an energy balance when it reaches a certain temperature so that energy in equals energy out.

In order to achieve this balance the entire land and atmosphere are involved in warming to the point where eventually all of the energy of the Sun impinging on the Earth is either reflected or radiated.

This part is true.
Wake wrote:
The atmosphere through a number of mechanisms absorbs or reflects via several manners over half of the energy striking the Earth. O2 absorbs the majority of the UV and re-radiates it in all directions. Since the atmosphere has such a large percentage of O2 most of it ends up back in space.

Absorption does not result in re-radiation. Absorption may cause heating (conversion to thermal energy), chemical reactions (such as conversion of O2 -> O3 or O3 -> O2), or direct ionization (generally UV-C and higher). Radiation of any molecule is strictly tied to its temperature, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
The 46% of the Sun's emissions that do strike the Earth that DO get absorbed are about 60% on oceans. This causes evaporative cooling and some 40% of this is carried eventually into the upper atmosphere and radiated into space. The solar radiation almost entirely now in the visible spectrum that strike the Earth and aren't immediately reflected back into space (this energy got to the Earth in the first place because it's spectrum was in open spots of the atmosphere's absorption spectrum) So some 9% is simply reflected back out into space. Most of it hits surfaces that do not directly reflect this energy but is warmed from which it then emits in the infrared spectrum.

Where do these numbers come from? Are these your calculations?
Wake wrote:
Sunlight contains almost no energy in the bands in which CO2 absorbs at and the Earth's IR emissions contain the bands that CO2 so far down the upper side of the bell curve that it too doesn't contain any energy for CO2 to absorb.

It actually contains a fair amount. Plenty enough to warm seawater, which absorbs nearly the same frequencies that CO2 does.
Wake wrote:
Some are arguing that CO2 uses totally different mechanisms to cause greenhouse effect but it is so convoluted that it cannot be proven. Others argue that since there is so little energy in the bands of CO2 absorption that any amount of CO2 over the amount that absorbs that entire energy does nothing at all. And that amount is in the very low 100 ppm.

Not only a rare gas, but it must be oriented in a specific way for light to be absorbed by it at all. The end result is about 1% of the CO2 is even involved in absorption. The result of absorption is conversion to thermal energy. The CO2 becomes slightly warmer. At 400ppm, this is quickly dissipated into the surrounding air.
Wake wrote:
So the energy that strikes the earth leaves as:

8% backscatter mostly from Raleigh scattering, 17% from direct reflections off of stratospheric clouds, 6% from direct reflection from Earth surfaces in the visible bands, 9% in the IR bands that have no barrier through atmospheric absorption, 40% emissions from all of the atmospheric gases including H2O in gaseous form and 20% emitted after being absorbed by low level clouds.

If you add these together you get 100% without that silly kindergarten display that makes little to no sense. Arguing about climate change when you don't understand the mechanisms involved isn't going to get you anywhere.

Again, where do these numbers come from?
Wake wrote:
The ONLY way for the climate to have been heating is by increased energy output of the Sun (sunspot cycles) and/or the Earth being closer to the Sun due to Milankovitch Cycles.

Absolutely correct.
Wake wrote:
What's more if you consider the energy balance you would note that it is a negative feedback loop and more stratospheric clouds form and reflect more of the Sun's energy if there is additional heating of the Earth.

A reasonable argument.
Wake wrote:
I should add that at the moment the part of the Milankovitch Cycle we are presently in has the northern hemisphere pointing more directly at the Sun. This hemisphere is composed of far more land surface which means that there would be more absorption and conversion to IR which takes a longer time to work it's way out of the atmosphere.

This is correct, as currently our apogee is during our July, leaving the Northern Hemisphere exposed when we are traveling slightly slower in Earth's orbit. Our perigee is in January, when the Northern Hemisphere is pointing away from the Sun. It is also the fastest point in Earth's orbit.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Funny Numbers:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Where are the numbers?3305-02-2019 00:00
This is funny5405-05-2018 21:03
human contribution by the numbers6121-12-2015 20:17
Polar Bears: sharp decline in numbers and health2205-10-2015 19:45
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact