There is still no Global Warming science.

Xadoman wrote: One thing confuses me. With conduction and convection it is easy to understand that when one body cools the other one warms up.

Xadoman wrote: But with radiant heat it seems not so simple. A body is losing temperature whether there is another body or not.

Xadoman wrote:A body loses its temperature into empty space.

Xadoman wrote: Considering this, lets say we have a way to build a thin layer of vacuum between the surface of the earth and atmosphere to eliminate conduction and convection from surface .

Michael G Lee wrote:...a lot to ask for because there is no such thing...

Michael G Lee wrote:Nor does he say what scientific scrutiny amounts to

tmiddles wrote:TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE ITN/IBD DENY

Michael G Lee wrote:...like a lawyer defending a murderer would....

Xadoman wrote:...lets say we have a way to build a thin layer of vacuum between the surface of the earth and atmosphere to eliminate conduction and convection from surface...

IBdaMann wrote:
the moment you create the vacuum gap it will fill with water vapor from the ocean

tmiddles wrote:

Michael G Lee wrote:...a lot to ask for because there is no such thing...

This is the recipe for disqualification Michael.

It's no different than the Jim Crowe laws that denied voting.

tmiddles wrote:
What ITN/IBD do is claim that no discussion can proceed because the qualifications are not met for a discussion/debate.

tmiddles wrote:
Those qualification are leastic for them and can be adjusted to disqualify anything.

tmiddles wrote:
I would suggest trying to leave the topic of Global Warming out of it entirely (which technically you did with your CO2 in the lab example) and see how the methods of disqualification don't change (see my sig for examples).

tmiddles wrote:
However! This game is worthy of it's own analysis I would argue.

tmiddles wrote:
Example:
The claim is repeatedly made by not just these guys that you cannot know the temperature of Earth. Why though?

tmiddles wrote:
Well play that out and you arrive at:

Michael G Lee wrote:Nor does he say what scientific scrutiny amounts to

And he won't. By presenting a "mystery standard" there is no way to qualify anything.

tmiddles wrote:
See the example of a human being in a room in my sig.

tmiddles wrote:
IBD has repeatedly dismissed it as "not repeatable" without ever explaining what "is repeatable". I gave up asking him.

tmiddles wrote:
Also don't think for a second they mean anything peer reviewed

tmiddles wrote:
or examined by the scientific community.

tmiddles wrote:
They insist that the whole deal is corrupt. See here:

Michael G Lee wrote:...like a lawyer defending a murderer would....

That's a good analogy but for those passionate that Global Warming is a crisis too. If it's "your baby" you are handicapped in your ability to weigh evidence.

tmiddles wrote:

Xadoman wrote:...lets say we have a way to build a thin layer of vacuum between the surface of the earth and atmosphere to eliminate conduction and convection from surface...

Cool hypothetical! I like that a lot.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
the moment you create the vacuum gap it will fill with water vapor from the ocean

IBD can you for a moment actually respond to his hypothetical?

tmiddles wrote:
Let's say it's 99% of the depth of our atmosphere that is separated from the bottom 1%. By two force fields, 10 feet apart. So only radiance can cross the gap. The atmosphere is still under the sway of Earth gravitation just as before. There is still the same air pressure initially below the lower force field.

tmiddles wrote:
So the key thing I see Xadoman is that you no longer have the focus for the atmospheric gasses gaining thermal energy from conduction at the base of the atmosphere.

tmiddles wrote:
Currently the 99% of the gas can gain thermal energy through conduction

tmiddles wrote:
so now the only way Oxygen and Nitrogen will gain energy would be through their interaction with green house gases.

tmiddles wrote:
I would think that the atmosphere would be a far less effective thermal energy store house just as a heat sink on a CPU would be less effective at gathering thermal energy if you air gapped it.

tmiddles wrote:
But I get you main question and it's a really good one. How would the gases in the atmosphere impact the ground level temp with ONLY radiance in play.

tmiddles wrote:
I'm really not sure. We have Mars with it's very thin atmosphere and way more CO2 as an example.

tmiddles wrote:
Anyway really good hypothetical I want to explore it more.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Xadoman wrote:...lets say we have a way to build a thin layer of vacuum between the surface of the earth and atmosphere to eliminate conduction and convection from surface...

Cool hypothetical! I like that a lot.

Except it's not possible.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
the moment you create the vacuum gap it will fill with water vapor from the ocean

IBD can you for a moment actually respond to his hypothetical?

tmiddles wrote:
Let's say it's 99% of the depth of our atmosphere that is separated from the bottom 1%.

tmiddles wrote:By two force fields, 10 feet apart. So only radiance can cross the gap. The atmosphere is still under the sway of Earth gravitation just as before. There is still the same air pressure initially below the lower force field.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Xadoman wrote:...lets say we have a way to build a thin layer of vacuum between the surface of the earth and atmosphere to eliminate conduction and convection from surface...

Cool hypothetical! I like that a lot.

Except it's not possible.

You've read Max Planck right? Totally his style to do thought experiments that would never be possible to construct in reality.

Xadoman wrote:
I wanted to eliminate conduction and convection because they simply add a lot of complexity in to the greenhouse gases debate.

Xadoman wrote:
I simply want to look only at radiation because that is basically the point global warming supporters do.

Xadoman wrote:
Their thesis is that the ability of atmosphere to absorb heat from surface is better when co2 concentration is higher.

Xadoman wrote:
They have shown experiences how a gas with higher content of co2 absorbs infrared better.

Xadoman wrote:
Now in the hypotetical model where conduction and convection is eliminated it seem to me that when the co2 level is higher then the temperature of atmosphere would also be higher.

Xadoman wrote:
I often hear that when atmosphere gets hotter then the surface must get cooler but with radiation I do not see this case( no conduction, no convection).

Xadoman wrote:
The surface would cool without the atmosphere at the same rate. Now, adding atmosphere only harvests the energy that leaves from earth and converts it to thermal energy.

Xadoman wrote:
In conclusion the surface of the earth is at the same temperature

Xadoman wrote:
but the temperature of atmosphere is higher if the gas content absorbs infrared better.

Xadoman wrote:
The sun output is the same. How is that possible.

Xadoman wrote:
It seems to me that we could say that the emissivity is different for both cases. The emissivity of the system that has more co2 in the atmosphere has higher emissivity than the system which has lower level of co2.

Xadoman wrote:
When you think about it it is logical.

Xadoman wrote:
The co2 absorbs heat better and therefore increases the emissivity of the atmosphere and the overall system.

Xadoman wrote:
In real life this could mean that the emissivity of earth is increasing when we add more co2 to the atmosphere.

You forget. The atmosphere is radiating too.

It takes energy to emit light. That cools the surface. It takes energy to emit light. That cools the atmosphere.

Which is also radiated into space.

Not possible. You can't create energy out of nothing.

Not possible. You can't create energy out of nothing, and you can't destroy energy into nothing. Everything radiates. The surface and the atmosphere.

Emissivity has no frequency term. It is independent of the substance emitting.

Xadoman wrote: Completely agree. The point I want to make is that a gas that has higher concentration of CO2 absorbs heat better. Therefore its temperature is higher.

Xadoman wrote: I agree but the temperature is higher because better absorbtion( emissivity)

Xadoman wrote: It radiates but the temperature is higher because the emissivity is changed due to pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Xadoman wrote: No need to have anything to do with frequency. A simple fact that a gas absorbs more heat states that the gas has higher emissivity.

Xadoman wrote:

You forget. The atmosphere is radiating too.

No, I just think it radiates more due to higher temperature.

Xadoman wrote:

It takes energy to emit light. That cools the surface. It takes energy to emit light. That cools the atmosphere.

Completely agree. The point I want to make is that a gas that has higher concentration of CO2 absorbs heat better. Therefore its temperature is higher.

Xadoman wrote:

Which is also radiated into space.

I agree but the temperature is higher because better absorbtion( emissivity)

Xadoman wrote:

Not possible. You can't create energy out of nothing.

Higher emissivity.

Xadoman wrote:
The gas simply absorbs the energy and converts it to thermal energy.

Xadoman wrote:
Without gas the energy would just go to empty space potentially heating something. With gas we now have additional mass in the atmosphere which could be heated from the surface of the earth (and ofcourse also directly from sun).

Xadoman wrote:
The earth is warmer and heats via radiation the gas that surrounds it.

Xadoman wrote:
I do not say that the gas heats the surface of the earth back.

Xadoman wrote:
It can not because the gas is colder but it does not matter. We now have atmosphere which is heated up due to the infrared from the surface of the earth( and also from sun directly).

Xadoman wrote:
Let me give an example. A planet with atmosphere that consist less CO2 and the other which has more of it. Now I am going to talk about only radiation to keep things simple.

Xadoman wrote:
The planet that has more CO2 in the atmosphere heats up( atmosphere +surface combined) more because the atmosphere could absorb heat better. The other planet stays overall cooler( atmosphere +surface combined) because it does not absorb heat in the atmosphere as well.

Xadoman wrote:
It is not creating energy out of nothing.

Xadoman wrote:
It is more efficient using of that energy that is available to earth from the sun. In other words we can change the emissivity of earth by pumping gases into the atmosphere. Simple as that.

Xadoman wrote:

Not possible. You can't create energy out of nothing, and you can't destroy energy into nothing. Everything radiates. The surface and the atmosphere.

It radiates but the temperature is higher because the emissivity is changed due to pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Xadoman wrote:

Emissivity has no frequency term. It is independent of the substance emitting.

No need to have anything to do with frequency. A simple fact that a gas absorbs more heat states that the gas has higher emissivity.

Xadoman wrote:...In conclusion the surface of the earth is at the same temperature but the temperature of atmosphere is higher if the gas content absorbs infrared better. The sun output is the same. How is that possible. It seems to me that we could say that the emissivity is different for both cases.

tmiddles wrote:
The amount of energy that is absorbed depends on 3 things:
1- Input energy (suns radiance)
2- Emissivity
3- Area

tmiddles wrote:
[quote]Xadoman wrote:...In conclusion the surface of the earth is at the same temperature but the temperature of atmosphere is higher if the gas content absorbs infrared better. The sun output is the same. How is that possible. It seems to me that we could say that the emissivity is different for both cases.

tmiddles wrote:
I think having a conveyor belt of convecting gas on top of a ground water level is like having a greater surface area. Just like a sponge can soak up more liquid than a solid block.

The perfect hypothetical black body interaction is this: EM strikes the black body and is absorbed by the surface, then THAT SAME SURFACE is not interfered with in it's ability to radiate back out.

With an atmosphere that surfaces, both the ground water and gas, is routinely obstructed by the matter of the atmosphere as it attempts to radiate out.

tmiddles wrote:
Also it won't radiate straight out as it would from the surface of a perfect sphere, but scatter.

tmiddles wrote:
Some radiance will even rattle along parallel to the ground level and not even obey an up or down rule as many diagrams show.

Xadoman wrote:
.... When the emissivity is 1 then the temperature of the body is highest. In other words when the body has already absorbed the energy as heat then the uv radiaton that the body starts to emit can not be used to heat up more matter from the same body in a way that the average temperature would rise....

tmiddles wrote: In Venus for example only 6% of the sunlight even reaches the dirt.

tmiddles wrote: Earth has a ground level temp 40C higher than expected, Venus is 500C hotter!

tmiddles wrote:

Xadoman wrote:
.... When the emissivity is 1 then the temperature of the body is highest. In other words when the body has already absorbed the energy as heat then the uv radiaton that the body starts to emit can not be used to heat up more matter from the same body in a way that the average temperature would rise....

If that is true then it's always true correct? Not just for the Earth but for other planets and even other objects.

Also if it's true then the global warming theory isn't just wrong it's impossible. So this is an excellent point to focus on.

So a few things I see being an issue with that:

1- Emissivity and temperature are about the "surface" which may or may not be the ground level. In Venus for example only 6% of the sunlight even reaches the dirt.

tmiddles wrote:
2- We are concerned with the temperature of the ground level in climate change / global warming

tmiddles wrote:
and, as with 1, this may not be the emitting surface for radiance to leave Earth as a body (which includes the atmosphere)

tmiddles wrote:
3- We should see a maximum temperature of a perfect black body for Earth, Venus and any body. Earth has a ground level temp 40C higher than expected, Venus is 500C hotter!

tmiddles wrote:
4- The concept that for a black body having a consistent source of radiance there will always be the same quantity of thermal energy retained/present in the object from that radiance would mean that if Earth was an empty shell 1mm thick it would contain the same thermal energy as it does now.

tmiddles wrote:
Anyway thats some food for thought

IBdaMann wrote:
In order to have any Global Warming science there must be a falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false). Without one, Global Warming cannot rise above the level of "religion."

If anyone believes s/he has Global Warming science, please post the falsifiable Global Warming model into this thread. I prefer the actual model be posted into this thread, not the link, because thus far every single person who has posted a link has posted a bogus link that did not lead to the falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false).

IBdaMann wrote:
I posted this on 22 October 2014:

IBdaMann wrote:
In order to have any Global Warming science there must be a falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false). Without one, Global Warming cannot rise above the level of "religion."

If anyone believes s/he has Global Warming science, please post the falsifiable Global Warming model into this thread. I prefer the actual model be posted into this thread, not the link, because thus far every single person who has posted a link has posted a bogus link that did not lead to the falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false).

We are closing in on six years of searching for Global Warming science and it appears that not only has there never been any but none is forthcoming.

Can we close this issue as "RESOLVED: No Global Warming Science" and just bury it in the graveyard of WACKY religions throughout time?


.

James___ wrote: And you still ignore glacial melt.

James___ wrote: You also ignore recorded history.

Amanbir Grewal wrote:without having to prove scientific observations, if i were to report excessive flooding that MAY NOT have any connection with the data, would i get the right to protect people from floods and rising sea-levels.

Amanbir Grewal wrote: does the budget have any provisions for checking natural disasters, as i am not very concerned with scientific achievement as i am with controlling and mitigating extreme damage because of certain 'INDUCED' ecological processes, even if they are based on false models.

duncan61 wrote: Does anyone get who this is.I am sure confused.Amanbir Grewal

duncan61 wrote:
Absolutely no Idea at all what random word/phrase producer is.I would be interested?

andeep wrote:
If you look at the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature over the past millenia or two, you'll see a very strong correlation. This can be falsified if those relationships don't exist for a sufficiently long time, but with global climate it can take many years to make that kind of assessment. But given that those relationships have existed for a very long time, and knowing that the levels of CO2 have increased because of human beings, there is clearly an observable pattern to go by.

andeep wrote:
If you look at the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature....

duncan61 wrote:
We have looked at the amount of energy required to warm the ocean and we do not have the power needed

HarveyH55 wrote:

andeep wrote:
If you look at the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature over the past millenia or two, you'll see a very strong correlation. This can be falsified if those relationships don't exist for a sufficiently long time, but with global climate it can take many years to make that kind of assessment. But given that those relationships have existed for a very long time, and knowing that the levels of CO2 have increased because of human beings, there is clearly an observable pattern to go by.

We haven't been measuring CO2 or temperature, for even 200 years... Those thousands of years of scripture, you're reading from, are computer generated, and nothing more than speculation, at best.

This is our first recorded interglacial period, and we didn't really start thinking about it much, until after a lot of the ice melted, basically a glacier or two disappeared permanently. Remember than one of them was the primary source of fresh water in that area, most of the year. We've no idea how long a interglacial period lasts, or why. We don't really know much about a ice age either. Nobody was around, with much in the way of book learning, or writing skills, to record their experiences. Are we still in recovery from the ice age? Have we peaked? Will the temperature fall slowly. or quickly, as we head into the next ice age period. Whole planet freeze, or just part of it? Life persists and diverse, so doubtful it's the entire planet, all at the same time. Since the cooling isn't likely whole planet, all at once, would the warming sort of follow a similar pattern? Climate change just averages any and all numbers they feel useful together, losing any locational data.

Arctic ice, doesn't really seem to cooperate with catastrophic melting theory. Seems to be doing what it's always done. Some years there is a lot of melting, followed by basically the same recovery. Varies some every year. For a warmer overall planet, Al Gore's prediction should have come true, or been clearly obvious by now. Hasn't really change significantly.

tmiddles wrote:

andeep wrote:
If you look at the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature....

Yes but correlation isn't causation. We know that more CO2 will be released by ocean waters as temperatures increase. That alone would create a pattern of higher CO2 to higher temps with CO2 playing a solely passive role.

"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 valid for IBD or ITN