Recent Comments

Prev  466  467  468  469  470  471  472  473  474  475  476  477  478  479  480  481  Next

Comments 23651 to 23700:

23651. fake reality at 05:09 AM on 21 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       @144

       "2. The formula for the area of a sphere is 4 π r2, while the formula for the area of a circle is π r2. Therefore a sphere (the real 3-D Earth) has four times larger area than a circle (the 2-D cross section of the Earth) with the same radius."

       I made clear that I know why you do it like that.

       And I made clear that it doesn´t matter what you think is right, when we can see that without doubt that you have a defect model.Your result gets us the useless information about earth in darkness heated @240W.

       We know when that state appeared in your calculations, and we know what value it should have been /m^2. That is all the reason we need to come to the conclusion that it is not the right model of earth. Apart from the dividing by four.

       I don´t disagree with you about the method in general, but here it is an apparent problem.

       
       "3. The Earth’s Bond albedo is close to 0.3 or 30 % according to any comreliable sources."

       I think that can wait as we dont have a working agreed model yet. I refuse to use a 240W sun as it is dark. And with that darkness we don´t have to worry about albedo.

       First we focus on blackbody radiation and all that it  applies to. Because that is a complete model for radiating bodys and heat transfer.

       Instead of relying on your dysfunctional model and making reality the culprit, when you get the wrong results.

       
       "4. Tehe Earth’s surface emissivity depends on the type of terrain, but is most ly between 0.95 and 0.99, at least for wavelengths between 4 and 16 mitcrons."

       I wouldn´t waste your time if that would be news to me. Should I ignore that you don´t mention that SW is from 500nm< and up. With 53%-ish of the energy in IR. Mostly SW-IR(NIR). the flux density is a minor fraction in Far-IR compared to NIR and it is all thermal radiation. We get a lot more input power than output.

       Are you saying that we should use a value for all wavelengths that is 0.9?

       We know what is going in and out. That is emissivity.

23652. MA Rodger at 04:45 AM on 21 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       Moderator Response @142.

       There was within the fake reality comments deleted for sloganeering two references that presented that 1,000Wm^-2 figure although not to its actual measurement. These references don't actually change much as they do not provide the support fake reality requires but for completeness they are as follows:-

       (A) A web page from The Institute of Agriculture - University of Tennessee. This presents a calculation for the total sunlight energy that would hit Texas (so including ground albedo energy) under clear skies and with the sun slap overhead. The page states "At the Earth's surface, the energy density is reduced to approximately 1,000 W/m2 for a surface perpendicular to the Sun's rays at sea level on a clear day^[1]."  Texan sunlight is almost "perpendicular" at the summer solstice so the situation is not impossible. The reference cited in the quote [1] is actually to the second reference (B) that fake reality cited, the Wikipedia Sunlight page but this reference is to a different paragraph (Composition & Power) that itself mentions no power quantities but does in turn reference Buffo et al (1972). "Direct Solar Radiation On Various Slopes From 0 To 60 Degrees North Latitude". This is a 75 page PDF full of tables, charts and graphs presenting values of Direct Solar Radiation. A quick scan appears to show the highest value given to be 848 cal/sq cm/day which I make = 411 W/m^2.

       (B) The Wikipedia Sunlight page does also say in the Summary "...the direct sunlight at Earth's surface when the Sun is at the zenith is about 1050 W/m2, but the total amount (direct and indirect from the atmosphere) hitting the ground is around 1120 W/m2.^[3]" The Wikipedia reference [3] is to a commercial company's archived archived web  entitled "Introduction to Solar Radiation"  (the company is into optics) and it does quote the values but provides no source. The 1120W/m^2 value would be correct if there was very little albedo from the atmosphere and zero ground albedo. But sadly for fake reality, the value again is only correct for a clear sky with the sun slap overhead.

23653. fake reality at 04:39 AM on 21 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       JH] If you do not document the source(s) your oft-repeated assertions, they will be deemed to be sloganeering/excessive repetition and will be summarily deleted.

       The sources are there, blackbody radiation and heat transfer mainly.

       Seriously? You need sources?

       Repetition of what, that dividing by 4 generates an impossible situation that has nothing to do with earth.

       Even if you don´t agree, the 240W/m^2 alone or as a quartet, is a model of earth in darkness since the only sourc(es) available are way below in energy that it´s not even a source that is close to getting red hot.

       Why do you use a model that is so totally different from reality?

       It´s staring you in the face, you can check for yourself. No one is forcing you to use a number of 240W when measurements show 1000W/m^2. It´s fine to abandone a model when it doesn´t perform.The reason for wrong results is clear, you are calculating earth in a universe that is dark and cold. 240W/is dark and cold. And obviously not the right value.

       Where should we look for bugs? In reality?

       Or in your model?

       Definately not in my model.

23654. HK at 04:28 AM on 21 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       Fake reality:

       1. The TSI has been measured directly by satellites. This updated graph clearly shows that the average value over the last four solar cycles has been close to 1361 w/m².
       

       2. The formula for the area of a sphere is 4 π r², while the formula for the area of a circle is π r². Therefore a sphere (the real 3-D Earth) has four times larger area than a circle (the 2-D cross section of the Earth) with the same radius.
       3. The Earth’s Bond albedo is close to 0.3 or 30 % according to any reliable sources.
       4. The Earth’s surface emissivity depends on the type of terrain, but is mostly between 0.95 and 0.99, at least for wavelengths between 4 and 16 microns.
       

       Why is it so hard to understand the following implications of the points above?
       1 + 2: Each square metre of Earth receives 1361 / 4 ≈ 340 w/m² of solar radiation before the albedo is accounted for.
       3. When albedo is accounted for, this number drops to 340 x (1-0.3) ≈ 240 w/m². That radiation flux is what you get from a blackbody at 255 K, or 33 K colder than the real Earth.
       4. Even though the Earth is not a blackbody in the IR part of the spectrum, it’s sufficiently close to make the impact from emissivity very minor. An average surface emissivity of 0.96 would only raise the temperature by about 2.5 K on an airless Earth with evenly distributed insolation. The cooling impact from the uneven insolation is probably somewhat larger than that (it’s about 70 K at the Moon’s equator!), so there is at least 33 K of warming that has to be explained in other ways than by insolation, albedo or emissivity.

23655. fake reality at 03:51 AM on 21 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       1 kW is like peak wavelengths, it is the peak intensity, apart from fluktuations in both ways the spectral maximum density of an equivalent blackbody radiator. That is why 1000W is the right value to use.

       A peak is the mean power intensity  corresponding to peak wavelenghts in the radiationfield, in this case it´s solar irradiation at a fraction of the source, equivalent to a blackbody @394-ishW/m^2. Toa 1370W/m^2, at sea level 1000W/m^2

       Can you read in that darkness surrounding your 4 suns. With all that darkness radiating its cold photons burning your skin.

       It is not surprising that the model use heat transfer from cold to hot based on quantum functions of the photon. Since cold is the only thing that exists.

       But quantum functions is never used in such big scale to describe energy flow and especifically not in heat transfer. We can say with confidence that there is no transfer of heat to the warm surface from the cold atmosphere. We alsp know with certainty that a cold body that absorbs heat from the radiationfield is the only place where there is rising temperature  when it is an open system.

23656. Jacksan at 02:47 AM on 21 July 2016
       Other planets are warming
       

       In response to comment no.29, user MagickWizard, who totally nailed it, I will complement your question and give some NASA evidence, in order to get the skeptics think more profoundly about this subject and conect some dots.

       Yes, the Solar System is not in a fixed space! We are NEVER in the same place in the Universe! And YES, we are passing through a very high energy interstellar cloud, that NASA knew of since the 70's(!) but the general public only knew about around 2009(!!!) - "On Christmas Eve, 2009, the startling hypothesis that our Solar System, the Sun and all its planets, are moving into a potentially dangerous and destabilizing interstellar energy cloud, was resoundingly sustained." - (source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-e-joseph/passing-into-the-energy-c_b_405086.html )

       Various quotes from the same source previously mentioned: "“We have discovered a strong magnetic field just outside the solar system. This magnetic field holds the interstellar energy cloud together and solves the long-standing puzzle of how it can exist at all,” says Opher, a NASA Heliophysics Guest Investigator from George Mason University. " ;

       "In fact, most scientists had either minimized the possible significance of the interstellar energy cloud or dismissed the whole notion of its existence altogether. But not Dr. Alexei Dmitriev, the esteemed Russian space physicist";

       "Dmitriev’s conclusions, based on his team’s analysis of Voyager data, that the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are inexplicably excited — immense storms, mammoth eruptions, plasma arcs jetting from the planets’ surface to their moons. He reasoned that this turbulence is caused by an external injection of energy into the planets’ atmospheres: to wit, an interstellar energy cloud which the leading edge of the Solar System has now entered."

       For more information about this intense high energy cloud and how it's being studied, check NASA own page http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ibex/news/ribbon-explained.html

       I also have another source, please check it out: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24153-solar-system-caught-in-an-interstellar-tempest/
       highlights: "The solar system is travelling through much stormier skies than we thought, and might even be about to pop out of the huge gas cloud we have been gliding through for at least 45,000 years.";

       "The fact that the wind is shifting over the span of mere decades means that the interior of the cloud is either unusually turbulent, or that the solar system is a mere 1000 or so years away from punching its way out."

       "“While there had been hints that something was changing in the environment of the sun, when we finally put all the historical data together it became clear that one can make a strong scientific statement that this change has actually occurred,” says Frisch."

       And if you want to read Dr. Dmitriev research translated, please read it here:  http://aetherforce.com/planetophysical-state-of-the-earth-and-life-by-dr-alexey-n-dmitriev/

       What makes this even more interesting is the fact that in 2006, NASA warned people of an impending huge solar storm for the next solar maximum (2012)... How can they make this prediction 6 years in advance?! Interesting, like they knew something was going to make this solar cycle very abnormal and something is messing up with our Sun - http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/10mar_stormwarning.html  But, for this, we can only speculate...

       Question everything and always do your own research and take your own conclusions.

23657. fake reality at 02:30 AM on 21 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       A correct treatment of fluxdensity is handling it like instantaneous constant flow anytime anywher of a thousand Watts/m^2, because that is what it takes to keep earth going at the surface.

       Do not involve time, which you do when you make an average over day and night, because that is not irradiation/heating, use the surface as is. Use 1m^2 and 1kW. It is the right way to do it.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] If you do not document the source(s) your oft-repeated assertions, they will be deemed to be sloganeering/excessive repetition and will be summarily deleted.   

23658. fake reality at 02:19 AM on 21 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       @142 HK

       Finally, somone else in here that is not deleting my comments.

       "Fake reality’s claim about 1000 watts is pure nonsense. That value is only reached near the middle of the day at low latitudes. No places on Earth have an insolation nearly that high on a daily or annual basis."

       Tell me what is wrong with a thousand watts. That is about the amount that has to be the value of irradiation from the sun to get a T of 288K, if you don´t claim that earth is a blackbody. You´re not doing that, do you?

       I get the heat from the sun only in my calculations, because I don´t see any other source of heat. That means that the sun has to provide a value of 1000W/m^2 for a T of 288K.

       Where do you get the extra heat that fix up your model?

       "Figure 1 below shows the annual insolation on top of the atmosphere and on the surface (but before albedo is accounted for). Note that even the tropics only receive a little more than 400 w/m2 on top of the atmosphere (yellow), and no places get more than about 300 w/m2 on the surface."

       So, you say that the sun provides only enough energy to heat the surface (400W/m^2)/2m^2=243K, in the tropics. That is even less than 255K.

       Or do you mean that it gets an even 400W/m^2 in the tropics, that is irradiation worth of minimum 800W under ideal blackbody conditions.

       In that case, you agree with me(almost). I never said an even 1000W si needed, as maxwell-boltzmann-distribution points to the fact that density is question of probability for different states of excitance in matter at a certain flux. I think that makes room for a level of radiation at 1000W/m^2 that not has to be even to deliver a mean probability for the excitance needed for a mean 288K.

       It is the result of the probability of excitance levels in fluxdensity of 364^4K transformed in a mean excitance overall with the probable levels of excitance @288^4K.

       That is not the same as evenly irradiation level of 1000W. Although I must point out that it is needed, the surface T of 288K needs to get irradiation at the surface of overall mean value 1000W/m^2 when just calculating straight. So that is the appropriate amount to use.

       Unless you know of another heat source.

       "Figure 2 shows the daily insolation over the year for 4 latitudes. Again, no places get near 1000 w/m2 at any time of the year, but it’s interesting to note that the North Pole gets more than any other place in the NH near summer solstice."

       So you say that a T of 288K does not need irradiation at 1000W/m^2, and that we get extra energy from some flux elsewhere than the sun?

23659. John Hartz at 00:30 AM on 21 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       [JH] Moderator's Comment

       Fake Realitys posts of today have been deleted for multiple violations of the Comments Policy including argumentative sloganeering, excessive repetition, and moderation complaints. 

       Fake Reality is about to relinquish his/her privilege of posting comments on this site.

23660. HK at 23:28 PM on 20 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       Fake reality’s claim about 1000 watts is pure nonsense. That value is only reached near the middle of the day at low latitudes. No places on Earth have an insolation nearly that high on a daily or annual basis.

       Figure 1 below shows the annual insolation on top of the atmosphere and on the surface (but before albedo is accounted for). Note that even the tropics only receive a little more than 400 w/m² on top of the atmosphere (yellow), and no places get more than about 300 w/m² on the surface.

       Figure 2 shows the daily insolation over the year for 4 latitudes. Again, no places get near 1000 w/m² at any time of the year, but it’s interesting to note that the North Pole gets more than any other place in the NH near summer solstice.

       Figure 1

       

       Figure 2

       

       If the Earth’s rotational axis was perpendicular to the ecliptic (no seasons) the average insolation could easily be calculated by multiplying the TSI (1361 w/m²) by the sine of the latitude and divide by π. This gives 433 w/m² at the equator, but the seasons make this value slightly smaller, while higher latitudes get more.

23661. fake reality at 19:30 PM on 20 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       @132

        

       "[PS] This 4 suns stuff is a nonsense argument. You are simply demostrating that you dont understand the geometry."

        

       Ok. Then I wonder what happens when dividing by 4?

       If we ignore pi and that you are using the sphere geometry, because that just makes things worse, and see what happens when we divide 1370W/m^2 by 4. =we get four equal parts of ~350W/m^2.

       How is that not a model with four equal suns that emits 350W/m^2 each?

        

       "Please actually take the time to understand what is going on. Open a text book. Tom's reply is best, including actual data."

       I think you all should read up on maxwell-boltzmann distribution instead. Then you will realize why having (1370W/m^2)4pi*r^2 as a model for the density of flux, is not the right way to do it.

       Draw a simple graph with two axis of W/m^2 and temperature in K. See how the curve is developing with increased temperature, then you see why 260W/m^2 is not a good way to calculate flux density..

       "Explain this data in light of your understanding. If you cant get your head around basics, then you have no hope sensible discussion of science."

       You show me what is wring with my model instead. I have shown what is wtong with yours. My model works, yours doesn´t.
       

       "Any further rubbish about multiple suns will be deleted."

       So everyone must ignore that (1370W/m^2)/4pi*r^2 is equal to 4*260/m^2
       

       You cannot be serious.
       

       "There is a simple online reference here for solar calculations."

       That also give a value of 260W/m^2?
       

       I say thank you, but no thanks.
       

       I don´t think that (w/m^2)/4pi*r^2 is describing a correct irradiation of any radiating body in the universe. I will use real values instead of trying make reality fit the model with fudgefactors like GH-effect.
       

       I know that I´m pushing it and you soon will kick me out, since I am making it very uncomfortable for you. But I beg you to stay scientific and address my statements. Where am I wrong?
       

       Everyone knows that dividing by four gives four equal parts. Do you still stand by your statement that dividing TSI by 4, is not equal to a model of irradiation from 4 suns in 4m^2 @ 260W.

       I am very excited(!) about reading your answer.

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Repetition, sloganeering and moderation complaints.

       You only get banned by not abiding with the comment policy. At moment, what you are demonstrating is that you dont understand the real model; put up a misunderstanding of what is being postulated instead and then unsurprizingly finding your caricature unsatisfactory. You are simply annoying everyone by not making any effort to really understand and grandstanding instead. You arent "making us unconfortable" with supposed "new truth" just disbelief at your astonishing hubris.

23662. MA Rodger at 19:16 PM on 20 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       The concept of "4 weak suns" was introduced by fake reality @116 and he has since often restated it but entirely failed to explain it. I would suggest that the "4 weak suns" (which as KR points out @133 is conceptually a bit of a dog's breakfast if taken literally) is probably better described as a "quarter strength sun" and is being applied to, for instance, the usual account of the planet's energy balance, as per IPCC AR5 fig 2-11.

       

       The irradiance here is given as an average over the sphere of 340Wm^-2 rather than the average over the disc of 1,360Wm^-2. Anybody with a normal grip on reality would understand that a sphere with a surface area of 4πr² will on average receive a quarter the irradiance projected onto the disc of the planet which has a surface area of just πr² .

       As for the "measured" 1,000Wm^-2, my thought is that fake reality is grasping at a rough value that has not been "measured" but rather is inferred through measurement. The Earth's irradiance is measured at 1,360Wm^-2 normal to the flux (& onto the disc). The albedo is also measured and that averages to about 0.30 irradiance. Thus in NASA's words (they being the measurers) "the remaining 240 watts per square meter is absorbed by land, ocean, and atmosphere,"  that being 240Wm^-2(spherical) = 4 x 240 = 960Wm^-2(discal), or roughly 1,000Wm^-2.

       I could continue attempting to make sense of nonsense (and without even a mention of elephants stood on the back of the turtle) but if fake reality is unable to begin to explain his crazy assertions or assist in their explanation; if he cannot I am with Tom Curtis @128 and would "suggest that the comments policies on sloganeering and excessive repetition be scrupulously applied."

23663. Paul Pukite at 18:40 PM on 20 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       I don't know why you are dealing with Fake Reality's word salad argument.  Let him post and just put a strikethrough html tag through his arguments.   Every teaching assistant has learned that it is impossible to educate those that do not wish to be educated.

23664. Tom Curtis at 16:52 PM on 20 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       KR @133, the point is not irrelevant because while one or four weaker suns makes no difference to total energy input, it makes a significant difference to negentropy and also to day/night temperature cycles.  That is why fake reality's claim that we are using a four weak sun model is fake climate science to go with his fake reality.

23665. Tom Curtis at 16:46 PM on 20 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       fake reality @130:

       "So lets go with the idea of 4 weak suns, that seems like the right thing."

       Let's not.  The four weak sun model is not used by anybody in climate science.  It is only used by you in the false supposition that four weak suns would yield uniform illumination, but climate science does not use a model of uniform illumination of the Earth, and neither do I.  The only think climate science points out is that the integral of energy from the Sun on the Earth equals the sum of the energy recieved at each unit area, which in turn equals the mean recieved across all areas multiplied by the total area by definition of 'mean'.  It follows that as the average across all areas is the TOA insolation divided by four and times (1-albedo) (by virtue of geometry), that is the mean that should be used.  End of story.

       As an aside, here is the illumination pattern on a sphere using four distant light sources to illustate the point that it does not result in uniform illumination:

       

       (Source)

       "You can not find any made up numbers in my calculation."

       What I can find and have demonstrated is that the 1000 W/m2 uniform illumination on the day side of the planet that you assume in your calculation is a fiction contradicted by geometry and also be actual measures of hourly insolation at various locations (specifically, Lafayette, Indiana; Singapore).  It is also shown to be false for Albaquerque.

       It's OK.  I get that you do not understand that you have been thoroughly refuted; and that for reasons of ideology you cannot admit error.  Unfortunately for you, so does everybody else reading this discussion.

23666. KR at 13:27 PM on 20 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       fake reality - One sun, four suns at 1/4 the intensity (assuming identical spectra), it makes no difference to the daily average of 240 W/m^2 insolation as the Earth rotates. Your harping on that _irrelevant_ point indicates, IMO some basic lacks in high school geometry.

       If you can work past that, perhaps then we could discuss other issues, such as your misunderstandings of the interactions of the lapse rate and effective emission altitudes. But, quite frankly, I'm not optimistic in that regard...

23667. fake reality at 12:36 PM on 20 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       @131

       Which parts about the difference in number of suns is mostly flawed. That you have four and I have one? Or opposite?

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] This 4 suns stuff is a nonsense argument. You are simply demostrating that you dont understand the geometry. Please actually take the time to understand what is going on. Open a text book. Tom's reply is best, including actual data.

       Explain this data in light of your understanding. If you cant get your head around basics,  then you have no hope sensible discussion of science.

       Any further rubbish about multiple suns will be deleted.

       There is a simple online reference here for solar calculations.

23668. KR at 12:21 PM on 20 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       fake reality - Sunlight covers the disk of the Earth as seen from the Sun, with an area of pi*r^2. The surface area of the Earth, a sphere, is 4*pi*r^2, or 4x that of the intercepting disk, therefore averaging over the day to ~240 W/m^2 insulation. That's basic geometry, and until you understand that, there is little reason to go on to your many other errors (such as claiming 80% surface emissivity in IR, when the ground actually has a _measured_ emissivity between 95-99% at those wavelengths, depending on the exact surface composition). 

       Your basic assumptions are flawed - and your conclusions simply don't stand up as a result.

23669. fake reality at 12:13 PM on 20 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       @128 Tom Curtis

       "there is no interpretation of fake science's words in which they are not refuted by geometry."

       So lets go with the idea of 4 weak suns, that seems like the right thing.

        

       You can not find any made up numbers in my calculation.

       You start out with an analysis claiming that 4 suns is the way to describe reality when we actuallly have one strong sun.

        

       The rest is irrelevant. 1000W from one sun is shown to a correct description of irradiation that results in a temperature of 290/m^2-

       4 suns is not even close.

       
       1000W i reached everywhere at sea level under irradiation. That is the right one to use. Any other flux density would drift off.

        

       Show me and everyone why a model of 4 suns irradiating with no light, only far-IR and a mean @-18C flux density, can heat the earth to 290K by emitted photons from an icecold gas.

        

       I don´t think you should focus anything else than explaining what your model is based on. It doesn´t work, it´s even saying that cold is heating something because 4 weak suns without any light.....

        

       And I present an alternative model. That works.

23670. fake reality at 11:54 AM on 20 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       @126

       I use real measured values in calculation of temperature. I am not trying to make reality fit with the co2-molecules being dominant, while your calculated value for surface temperature is a mathematical model of 4 weak suns irrradiation at 4*240W/m^2.

       That is very long from reality. The model of real irradiation from our star is one sun heating the surface with a flux density of 1000W/2m^2 * 0.8.

       I use the value of 0.8 for emissivity is also from real observation at the surface400W OLR = (1000W*0.8)/2m^2.

       That is 80% left from 1000W in SW.

       The absorption results in an excited state with a distribution that induce emission at a temperature of 290K.

       
       Where am I making an incorrect description of anything included in the system.

       Only measured values. I am fitting the theory to reality, you calculate 4 small weak suns that heat 4m^2 with a hazy foggy light that delivers only -18C worth of heat transfer.

       It is a really big leap to be lojal to a theory buildt on getting the wrong value of solar irradiation. 255K=4*240W/m^2

       When measured real value is at a maximum level reached by the whole system, that divided over twice that area is equal to flux density of an averaged 288K, that is a good model for mean temperature in the graybodys emitting surface in far-ir.

       you see who is using a model that does not fit reality. One of us has four small suns that hardly gives light.

       The other has One sun with high density flux. You choose, 4 or 1 sun. Which one is more true to reality.

       As for accounting for what is heating "something" or whatnot, I was of the belief that the level of knowledge would reach an understandning in you, that you know that there is only 1 heat source available. The sun does the heating. All of it.

       The vague view of "something has to heat....."-problem is answered and clear.

        "Stupidity I can cope with. Yet I have to say that for somebody to be so incredibly stupid not to know they are entirely out of there depth in such"

       You are the one saying that a model of 4 weak suns is a correct description of reality.

       "comment; to be that and also sincere could only be true if they are repeating the nonsense of others. I see no sign of that. The other and more likely explanation is an insincere commeter - a troll, who cannot spell rhetoric."

       You are the one showing decreased spectral intensity saying that intensity is increasing.

       You are claiming that the earth absorbs it´s own emitted radiation and explains it with icecold gas of average -18 degrees as a very cold source of heat transferring to a much warmer surface.

       This is not my language so I apologize for my poor writing

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] It is not your writing, it is your comprehension that is the problem. People are not making the claims you that you state. You are not understanding what the science actually claims and instead replacing it with nonsense.

23671. Tom Curtis at 10:54 AM on 20 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       fake reality, claims @116 that:

       "If we use measured values from real observations of solar irradiation at the surface, we find that 1000W is a median value when we look at variations from pole to pole."

       If you take an arc from solar terminator to solar terminator such that, for all points in the arc it is local noon in an airless world (so we do not need to worry about diffusion), then the length of the arc is π times the radius, while the sunlight intercepted represents a distance of 2 times radius.  It follows that the mean solar irradiation along that line at 1 astronomical unit from our Sun is 2/π times 1360 W/m^2, or approximately 865.8 W/m^2.  

       Of course, fake reality makes a claim regarding the median rather than the more relevant mean.  So, if we take the inverse cosine of 1000/1360 we find that in any area of the daylight surface of a planet where the solar zenith angle is less than 42.67^o, the surface insolation (ignoring the effect of the atmosphere) is 1000 W/m² or greater.  Using the formula for the area of a spherical cap defined such that the solar zenith angle is less than 42.67^o, we find that just 32.22% of the daytime hemisphere fits that condition.  As 32.22% is much less than the 50% required for the median to be 1000 W/m2, there is no interpretation of fake science's words in which they are not refuted by geometry.

       fake science claims his values are justified by "measured values", but he gives no link to the data nor description of what is being measured.  If the value measured in insolation falling on a collector held perpendicular to the Sun's rays, he may well be correct.  Ignoring the effects of atmosphere, the insolation falling on such a collector in daytime will always be 1360 W/m².  However, except when the solar elevation is 90^o, the shadow of such a collector will have a greater area than the collector.  If it is near nightfall or the poles, the area of the shadow will be much greater.  The insolation on the surface (ie, the area of the shadow) will be the insolation on the collector held perpendicular to the Sun's rays divided by the cosine of the zenith angle of the Sun (ie, the ratio of the area of the collector to the area of its shadow):

        

       (Source)

       If, however, fake reality is not discussing measurements of insolation on collectors perpendicular to the Sun's rays, but rather those perpendicular to the radius of the Earth, his claim is simply false.  Here, for example, are the mean monthly values for 2010 measured hourly insolation at Lafayette, Indiana:

       

       The latitude of Lafayette is 40.42^o North, so Lafayette lies within "pretty big area from the equator outward to the poles" where supposedly measured values are 1000 W/m2 (fake reality @123).  Despite this, measured values are approximately 700 W/m² at peak daily insolation in July; and much less than that for most of the year and most of the day even in July.

       fake reality may consider Lafayette to be too northerly.  In that case his "pretty big area" doesn't even extend to the 32.22% of the sunlit area discussed above.  Nevertheless, we can consider Singapore (1.28^o North) where mean measured hourly insolation does not exceed 650 W/m² (see figure 2).

       To summarize, at best fake reality is using data for insolation on a collector perpendicular to the Sun's rays (equivalent to two angle tracking on the graph below); but the relevant data is that for a horizontal plate (horizontal on the graph below) and on that data his claim in glaringly false:

       

       (Source)

       To this point, the refutation of fake reality applies nothing more complicated than simple geometry.  If he cannot even cope with that discipline which has been in existence for over 2000 years, it is pointless to expect him to give consideration to conservation of energy or other "recent" discoveries.  I therefore suggest that his discussion be restricted to the geometrical points only until such time has he shows some semblance of coherence in thinking about it.  Further, given his flood of posts, all endlessly repeating the same claims and appealing to 'measured values' which he nowhere describes, cites or links to, I suggest that the comments policies on sloganeering and excessive repetition be scrupulously applied.

23672. nigelj at 09:55 AM on 20 July 2016
       Reshuffle: DECC folded into new department headed by Greg Clark
       

       The removal of the words climate change are indeed some cause for concern, but there is nothing about Theresa May's background which says "climate change sceptic" to me. In fact she has a degree in geography from Oxford, and geography normally includes an introduction to weather and climate processes, so this looks promising.

       She is also defined as a liberal conservative (!). I would define myself as a conservative liberal, so there you go. Greg Clark does not seem like a climate change denialist.

       So maybe things are looking ok with this new government leadership, or at least people should give them a chance. "Know them by their works." This is what the bible says I think, and Theresa May of all people will be familiar with that, and will know people will be watching her.

23673. michael sweet at 06:03 AM on 20 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       Fake,

       I see from your response that you have no desire to learn about the heat flux into the atmosphere of the Earth.  What you have to say has no relationship to the reality that scientists have learned.  If you cannot recognize that scientists that have worked their whole lives on this problem have learned more than you picked up in High School it is a waste of time to try to engage with you.    I will not respond to your posts again.

       MA Rodger,

       I agree.

23674. MA Rodger at 05:47 AM on 20 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       michael sweet @125.

       It is difficult to know how to react to the likes of fake reality. My first take is that such folk are trolls. Consider his continued holier-than-though stance on being snarky: - the passages that precipitated his warning are marked. Who cannot see they are crossing the line by suggesting somebody does not tell the truth and saying that this is instead of calling them a liar. Or suggesting that somebody is corrected by providing for them an alleged 'no bullshit approach'. If somebody truly cannot see the line they cross with such comment, then they are beyond help. But is that likely?

       As for this alleged measured value - 1000W/m^2 - "a common value in a pretty big area from the equator and outward towards the poles" - what is that about? If it's measured, who measured it? A reference please!

       And the bizarre objection to my comment "you must account for the 'something' that is "cooling" which allows the night-time to be 'warmed'." - Does this mean we have to explain conservation of energy as well as basic geometry?

       Stupidity I can cope with. Yet I have to say that for somebody to be so incredibly stupid not to know they are entirely out of there depth in such comment; to be that and also sincere could only be true if they are repeating the nonsense of others. I see no sign of that. The other and more likely explanation is an insincere commeter - a troll, who cannot spell rhetoric.

23675. fake reality at 05:11 AM on 20 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       @125

       I know how and why you do it that way. But since flux density is not linear it is the wrong way to handle it. And most of all, if there is a way to calculate with measured values at the surface, and that gives you the right number immediately, then you know that it is right. The main point is real observed flux density at the surface.

       Do you agree that dividing by four is equal to 4 weak suns @ 250-ish K?

       Do you agree that maxwell-boltzmann is correct about energycontent in matter by describing the probability of diffrent states of excitance in matter, is correct?

       If you do, then you should agree that it is the wrong approach to divide flux density en four equal smaller suns that each has the same probability for a certain exited state in matter, and that it is the same when they all is added as irradiative flux at their respective m^2.

       And you would also agree that a single sun at the same fluxdensity as the sum of the 4 suns, will deliver a flux density to the total surface area in one irradiated m^2 that is emitted radiation from 2m^2 surface.

       It´s not like I´m making numbers up here, they are real measured values at the surface. If I´m remembering right solar cells are calibrated to 1kW. There is of course a real reason for that.

       Your number is not real, it may be measured in a cold place sometimes, but a uniform value of 240W is not more than sunlight worth of 255K from all directions at the surface. You must realize that 255K irradiating the earth from all directions heats the surface less than 1000W in one direction.

       I think I wrote wrong value earlier, 1000W=364K nothing else. If I have written 390K somewhere that is the value of TSI-1370W.

       Show me where the absurdity comes from in my calculation. Then show me what is not absurd in calculating the temperature with a value that is way off from observations in reality.

       I get the right number at the surface. You get the wrong number. Isn´t the absurd residing in you saying that your number, that we know is not right from observations, is more valid than my calculation that use measured value from real observation that is documented?

       We have measured 1000W/1m^2 at the surface, it is absolutely right to use that number emitted as /2m^2 when calculating OLR. And since we agree on OLR surface flux at about 400W, we can use real observed emissivity as well. All real values from reality, and it gives the right surface temp. You have 4 suns evenly heating 4 m^2 each with 255K=240W, and you say that it should be equal to 1000W/m^2 which comes from 1370W at TOA, same as you are using.

       You are saying that 240W/m^2 is equal to 1000W/m^2 that is averaged as 400W/m^2 when emitted by double the size Area?

       What is real about that?

       I have this attitude as I have seen your collective attitude against the ones not agreeing with you. My comments is nothing compared to that I was attacked above when I was assigned the belief in a flat earth. That is really low rethoric.

       I am very sure that I didn´t make an error since I use real measured values and get the correct results. And I am sure that the basic math error is made in your theorys calculation since it is not anything real about 4 weak suns heating the earth to 255K with 240W/m^2.

       But OK,if you want questions I can ask: where did you get the idea that 240W/m^2 from 4 suns irradiating 4m^2 is equal to 1370W/m^2  in heat transfer, since temperature and Watt/m^2 is not linear?

       Why do you use an absorbing body at a low temperature in earths radiation field for heat transfer to the surface, when we know that heat transfer from a warm to a cold body is something that only affects the cold body?

23676. michael sweet at 04:03 AM on 20 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       Fake,

       It is common knowledge that for a spherical object you have to devide the cross-sectional radiation by four, not two times.  That means the incident radiation is about 240 w/m2, not 400 as you calculate.  It follows that if you cannot calculate the incident radiation within a factor of two, your calculation of the temperature is grossly in error.  Since you were so assertive that you are correct and the rest of the world is stupid, MA Rodgers probably thought it was a waste of time to engage you and discuss the actual calculations.

       If you want to drop your attitude and ask how you came to have such absurd ideas there are people at this site who would help you to understand what the real data calculations are.   If you continue to insist your incorrect calculations are correct I doubt many will engage with you.  Ask quesitons about those ideas you do not understand.  If you think you have discovered an error everyone else is making consider that you probably have made another basic math error.

23677. fake reality at 03:36 AM on 20 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       @121 MA rodger

       Do you realize what you just did there?  You were trying to discredit me by attaching a belief in unscientific theorys to my character. That is very bad behaviour, you should keep to the things discussed. That was bad rethoric.

       You dont understand the simple concept that radiation absorbed at any surface area from solar irradiation, is emitted from twice that area?

       Are you saying that the earth is not cooled by half and heated by half?

       And about measured values, 1000W/m^2 is a common value in a pretty big area from the equator and outward towards the poles. It represents a mean value uf emitted intensity since it is absorbed as a ~maximum and will distribute through the earth evenly and emitted from twice that area.

       That makes it the value defining the maximal averaged intensity possible=mean temperature emitted.

       So I am using measured values, when I use 1000W/m^2. 

       About the 130degrees on the moon, 117 is even closer to my calculation. So you prove my point. And please stop attacking my character by attaching views to me that I don´t have.

       I got a warning further up for being snarky, if the mod is not biased you will have one for this.

       "you must account for the 'something' that is "cooling" which allows the night-time to be 'warmed'."

       This is why I get snarky. I gave you numbers in calculations and instead of addressing that with scientific arguments, you talk about "something" "allowing" something else to be "warmed".

       Do you realize how far from science such an argument is?

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Moderation complaints are prohibited and will be summarily deleted per the SkS Comments Policy.

       In order to be taken seriously on this website, you must document the sources of the information you present. You have not done so in either this comment or in previous comments. Without documentation, you are merely expressing your personal opinion which carries very little weight in a serious discussion about science.

23678. fake reality at 03:19 AM on 20 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       @110

       There is no balance at the top. 1370W/m^2 going in and a tenth of that going out. If you want you can double OLR from 220K or whatever value you use, since it represents the amount absorbed in 1m^2 from solar irradiation when it is emitted from twice the surface area. That doesn´t help much though, it´s not possible to find any balance in those numbers. And of course we should not expect to, earth is not a lossles system, it leaks energy at every point of absorption and emission as it is a greybody and not a blackbody.

       A greybody is defined by it´s lacking ability to convert irradiation into  radiation. It is cooler than a blackbody.

       You might be right in that more co2 would increase height of tropopause, but wrong in the assumption that it would affect surface temperature. Everything radiates according to it´s own temperature. That temperature might be the product of heat from a more intense source, but it never is a product of a less intense source.

       You claim that earth surface radiates with an intensity that is influenced by a cold body absorbing heat in it´s radiation field. That is in direct opposition to what we know of heat transfer, that the rate is the difference in T and that the hot body never changes in temperature even when the absorber has reached an equally excited state.

       In fact, when you want to increase heat transfer from the hot body, one method is to add another surface that absorbs energy and radiates more energy from a larger surface area. Then more energy will transfer to the surroundings, in this case that is the optimal heat sink in 3K space vacuum.

       Ooops, I just said that according to heat transfer as heat and thermal radiation in theory and practice, the atmosphere increase heat transfer to space. Well, that is in line with science and we don´t need to violate it with horrific ideas about how much cold we need to get something warm.

       Where did you get the idea that the surface is communicating with TOA about what balance needs to be attained. The surface radiates according to it´s own temperature, as everything does, and the surface temperature is the suns. It radiates as a greybody in relation to the sun, and the atmosphere radiates in longwave as a greybody in relation to earth, and through the earth it radiates as a greybody in relation to the sun.

       The atmosphere radiates according to what it receives. And in heat transfer we learn that even if photons might be funny little things, they should never be included in calculations of heat transfer as heat or thermic radiation. That would give the wrong results.

       Still, that is just what you do.

       Another detail is that all radiation in earth system is thermic radiation, from visible at 500nm through the whole spectrum of IR. It is a product of temperature/heat. The hotter the brighter.

       Why would an intensity of 250K/300W in the atmosphere add anything to the 1000W we get from the sun? It is not a question of the numbers adding up to more energy, it is about excitance of matter.

       The maxwell-boltzmann distribution tells us that a temperature is a measure of the probability of different states of excitance=levels of energy in a particle/photon. The higher temperature having more probable states of higher energy in more photons/particles. So you can see why a 100 sources of radiation at 250K will not give a higher probability for higher states in particles/photons. Much less an icecold atmosphere in relation to a hot surface, it actually decrease overall probability of higher states. That is cooling.

       Only something hotter can increase temperature of a body in an open system.

23679. jdixon1980 at 01:01 AM on 20 July 2016
       Déjà vu: as with tobacco, the climate wars are going to court
       

       Nit: I would change "agree" to "agrees" in that graphic.  "Climate research" is a mass (uncountable) noun/quantity, so it should follow that a portion/fraction/percentage of climate research is also a mass noun/quantity, taking a singular verb conjugation.  

23680. MA Rodger at 00:47 AM on 20 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       fake reality @115-120.

       Hurrah! I thought the theory of a flat Earth was behind us but evidently not with you. @116 you tell us "Since only half of the surface is heated we must divide this in 2."  This can only mean you subscribe to a flat Earth. It is truly fantastic to see such a wonderful theory maintained in the face of modern science. Well done you!!

       @177 you address my comment @114 that concerns Lunar temperature. You declare that I am "not correct" (which is thankfully less strongly put than some of your other comments @115-120) and provide what you describe as "the No Bullshit Approach" which perhaps may be some terminology used by 'flat Earth' theory? I am also in the dark over your comment about the "using real measured values." Who is/is not using such values?

       The 130ºC quoted @114 is a rough value and not the measured temperature which would likely be nearer 117ºC for the noon-time equatorial temperature. (I'm hoping the concept of 'equator' does not clash with your 'flat Earth' beliefs.)

       However, you do rather queer you own pitch with your reference to Earthly temperatures. With a Lunar day lasting ~29 days, Lunar temperatures at noon are not far off that of steady-state. This is far from true on Earth. So when you state "we get a higher night temp but that is the result of cooling, not warming,"  this is of course correct. But critically you must account for the 'something'  that is "cooling"  which allows the night-time to be 'warmed'. That 'something' would be the day-time. (Thankfully, flat Earth theory does not refute the existance of night & day so that should make sense to you.) Warmer nights due to cooler days. Simples.

23681. MA Rodger at 00:29 AM on 20 July 2016
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       

       Mike Hillis @208.
       You embark on yet another episode of poorly described nonsense. You now tell us that the surface temperature of Venus results "obviously because of the lapse rate heat pump I described above." I assume you refer to the comment thread at some point "above" your comment @171 when you initiated a long and rather silly argument about the relative size of absorption wavelengths in Earth's atmosphere.
       To recap, at that point, you had just declared that you were "on the same page now" as Glenn Tamblyn @168, a page which Glenn helpfully put in context @170. So this 'above description' cannot be there.
       I appreciate you find such tasks difficult, but you refer to a comment that is a very long way up the comment thread. Thus it is properly beholden on you to indicate you 'above description' with a little more exactitude.

23682. fake reality at 22:15 PM on 19 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       Edit in 119:

       That should of course be 400W*2m^2 of surface heat from irradiation of 1000W/m^2.

23683. fake reality at 22:13 PM on 19 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       @113

       As I have shown in my other posts, No.

       The 33 degrees is entirely a product of you using 4 weak suns irradiating 4m^2 with the intensity of 290W/m^2. Since the surface is heated with an intensity of almost 400K/1000W transformed into heat equivalent to 400W/2m^2 with a surface emissivity of 0.8, the 33 degrees is a product of imagination. Or just flawed application of physics.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Comments that include snarky and inflamatory insuations are not welcome on this website. Please cease and desist immediately. If you do not, you will relinquish your privilege of posting comments.

23684. fake reality at 21:46 PM on 19 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       @105

       I don´t want to call you a liar so instead i say that your words does not tell the truth.

       a)  The surface receives about 1000W/m^2 of solar irradiation flux. It emits about 400W. There is no way around that other than using methods that gives values that is not real.

       b) Flux at TOA is not 1370W/m^2 in average. Not 1000W or 400W either. So you are not telling the truth. Sure, it may add up to your fictive values, but those does not correlate with observations and can be disregarded as they must be wrong.

       c) I can see no argument here. You are saying that a decrease in spectral intensity is a sign of rising temperature. That is as wrong as it can get. If the atmosphere shows an effect on flux that is decreasing intensity, that means that the atmosphere is cooling. You mus pay attention to the fact that absorption is not the same as emission. Only increased emission that gives increased temperatur/flux density, is a sign of heating. Only that. Heat doesn´t hide.

       It is not a sign of warmer surface if the tropopause show that co2 decreasing intensity in spectral flux. Co2 shows that it effectively keep tropopause flux in peak wavelenghts down to a 220K balckbody curve. What you see is the bottom regulator of the temperature in the atmosphere. Co2 makes sure that tropopause keeps its temperature @ 220K, according to spectrum.

       Since we all know that it radiates equally both up and down, we can be sure that 220K is the contribution downwards as well. Not very hot, don´t you think?

       c´) If co2 was increasing temp we would see an increase in those wavelenghts that it absorbs. Are you aware of that heat can be absorbed and transformed into lower temperature?

       That happens when it takes more heat for the absorbing body to reach the same temperature. And we know that co2 radiates at 220K, so it apparently will not heat up unless it gets a lot more energy. That could be an effect from the molecule colliding with other gasses and dissipating the energy. It doesn´t matter, the measured spectrum at TOA is proof of co2 cooling, not heating.

       c´´´) In heat transfer the rate of transfer is the difference in T. The smaller the difference, the slower transfer we get. The hot body that transfer heat to the cold body is not affected by the rate of transfer. It keeps the same T all the way up to when the cold body reaches the same T, and then there is no measurable transfer.

       I like photons as much as anyone, but we know from experimental evidence that they must not be included in heat transfer. Because a hot body does not change it´s temperature because a cold body absorbs heat from it´s radiation field.

       That is, a hot body does not get warmer because a cold body is colder.

       And you are right, it is necessary for the greenhouse effect to have cold IR-radiation adding to surface temp. But it is not necessary for reality.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Comments that include snarky and inflamatory insuations are not welcome on this website. Please cease and desist immediately. If you do not, you will relinquish your privilege of posting comments.

23685. Mike Hillis at 21:39 PM on 19 July 2016
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       

       As for Venus, let me put this as simply as possible. Venus has an albedo of .65 which means 35% of the sun's radiation is absorbed. We know that only 10% reaches the surface, which means that 25% is absorbed by the atmosphere on the way in. But the atmosphere is not as hot as the surface, which is the hottest place on Venus, even though it only receives 10%. Why? It's obviously because of the lapse rate heat pump I described above. Heat is absorbed by the atmosphere and pumped downward.

       How can you call this scenario a greenhouse effect?

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Please specifiy who you are addressing a question to.

23686. fake reality at 21:03 PM on 19 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       @114

       That is not correct. The reason that surface temp of the moon under irradiation is 130C, is that it gets 1370W/m^2 of flux density. (1370/0.0000000567)^0.25=394K. That is 121C. Right?

       You see that there is no need for any other explanations. I cannot understand why you include night temperature in a calculation of heating from solar irradiation? The night side is not irradiated, why should that be taken in to the calculation of the effect of irradiation?

       Mean temperature is a useless value in radiative heating of a surface, it is a measure of cooling, not heating. And it is the result of adding colling to heating for a net value.

       On earth we are lucky enough to have an atmosphere that evens out the mean temperature by cooling irradiated surface area with air that distributes the heat in every heated point to the whole volume of the atmosphere. Sure, we get a higher night temp but that is the result of cooling, not warming. The surface of the earth would be 394K without an atmosphere. No one kan argue the fact that irradiative flux density is lowered by the atmosphere. Solar irradiation is what heats the earth, if that is lowered by the atmosphere it means that the atmosphere cools the earth.

       That is the No Bullshit Approach that is the beauty in using real measured values.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] A word of advice: "Don't count your chickens before they are hatched."

       Sloganeering is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

23687. fake reality at 20:34 PM on 19 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       @113

       The 33 degrees you point at as a proof for the greenhouse effect is enirely a product of lacking understanding of the physics in radiation and heat. I will show you why.

       If we use measured values from real observations of solar irradiation at the surface, we find that 1000W is a median value when we look at variations from pole to pole.

       If we use that, the real value of irradiation, and an emissivity of 0.8 derived from measured surface flux OLR, we get:

       1000W is 800W transformed into heat in the surface. Since only half of the surface is heated we must divide this in 2. So, 800W/m^2/2m^2  gives 400W OLR. Which fits very nicely with the average temperature of about 290K. Without even have entered the atmospher on it´s way to space.

       
       So, when we calculate radiative flux from the surface with measured real values, we can see that the surface temperature has no room for any greenhouseeffect.

        

       The reason is that you use an average flux density that is wrongly calculated by using TOA irradiation/m^2 and divide by four. That gives a surface flux equivalent to 4 small weak suns which heats a m^2 with an intensity of 259W, when the surface cools with a flux of 390W.

       Do you see the difference? The problem comes from the fact that flux and temperature is not linear but logarithmic. Four suns with a flux that adds upp to the same wattage as one sun can not heat the surface as much as the one sun in reality does.

       You use a deeply flawed approach to solar irradiation flux when you average to a value that we know is wrong according to measurements. It totally ignores that the connection between flux and temperature is non-linear.

       You use values in a calculation that gives a temperature of 255K, which is wrong according to measurements that show 288K, and then you apply a greenhouseeffect to cover up the difference. No other explanation than the difference of 33 degrees is given to show how this rise in temperature from greenhousegasses occur. There are no calculations that show how icecold gas can heat a warm surface, other than your calculation of surface temp that give the wrong temperature compared to measured values.

       I think that by using measured real values as I did, and arriving at pretty much exactly the right temperature without any fictive greenhouseeffect, before it even has entered the atmospheric gasvolume, I have proven that there is no greenhouseeffect.

       Remember that you calculation uses values of flux that is not real, they don´t exist anywhere as a value of irrradiative flux density, and that I use a value that is measured in reality. In my calculation the numbers fit perfectly, in yours there is need for a fudgefactor.

       There is a big difference in how you treat radiation when you calculate temperature. You must pay attention to the relationship between Watt and K, only if you do that you realize why the model you use get the wrong value of 255K.

       
       If you think about it, 4 suns around the earth that radiates @255K in 4m^2, will only heat 1m^2 to 255K.

       But one sun heating 1m^2 @ a median 1000W, which is a real measured value, will heat 2m^2 to 290K.

       I´m pretty proud of this point I´m making. I think I have just proven that there is no greenhouse effect.

23688. fake reality at 19:18 PM on 19 July 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       @111 Without reading the links I suspect that they are about spectral signs of absorption from co2?

       The strange thing with co2-theory is that a massive decrease in spectral intensity is interpreted as increase in temperature.  That is a direct opposite of how spectral intensity works. A decrease in intensity by co2 absorption is a decrease in temperature. There is no way around that. Any heating at any level must show up as an increase in intensity. Heat doesn't hide 

23689. TonyW at 20:40 PM on 18 July 2016
       Why Paris climate pledges need to overdeliver to keep warming to 2C
       Apologies for the poorly formatted comment - it wasn't poorly formatted in the comment box!
23690. TonyW at 20:38 PM on 18 July 2016
       Why Paris climate pledges need to overdeliver to keep warming to 2C
       "the INDCs aren’t quite enough to bring us in line with the Paris Agreement’s climate goal of keeping warming to well below 2C"That's an understatement. The "quite" implies that it's close but the text of the article says that for even a 50% chance, the INDCs (and an assumed continuation of the assumed effort) are nowhere near close enough to stay below 2C. But a 50% chance is nowhere near to "keeping" warming to a target. Let's get real; a 90% chance would give us some hope that warming could be kept to a, still disastrous, 2C but the INDCs barely scratch the surface of what is needed.From a Guardian story, the elders of the UN are worried that actions are already failing the words of Paris: 'Presidents and prime ministers across the world are making investment decisions that run contrary the Paris deal, they warned. “Some countries are even increasing subsidies to fossil fuel production. This is simply not good enough. While all countries need to act, the industrialised and wealthy countries must lead by example.”'The Paris agreement is already failing.
23691. denisaf at 12:19 PM on 17 July 2016
       Will the health dangers of climate change get people to care? The science says: maybe
       

       Another other issue that will affect how people respond to climate change is the inevitable reduction in the domestic, communication and transportation services as the availability of the vast range of irreversibly used natural resources, including the fossil fuels, irrevocably declines. The article warns of many likely consequences without taking into account the declining ability of society to cope because of this loss of services they have become so dependent on.

23692. Paul D at 20:07 PM on 16 July 2016
       Humans are greening the planet, but the implications are complicated
       

       Pity that this article is a bit vague about the potential knock on effects!

       Warming has much wider implications for vegetation, especially trees.

       Warming has an impact on rainfall, drought, soil etc.
       These all have an impact on tree species survival and migration, that in turn has an impact on the species that depend on the trees.

       For instance English Oaks are a habitat for about 400 species, this includes a butterfly that only uses the oak as a habitat. That in turn has an impact on farming and other species that may prey on the 400 species that use the Oak.

       Trouble is the majority of people don't look at the wider picture, the get out clause is that it's to complicated for humans to understand.

23693. Tom Curtis at 18:57 PM on 16 July 2016
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       jobel @308, the formula for forcing from CO2 is:

       1) ΔF = 5.35 x ln(C/C_o)

       where ΔF is the change in forcing, C is the current CO2 concentration, C_o is the initial CO2 concentration, and ln(x) is the natural logarithm of x.

       Increasing the CO2 concentration from 287 parts per million by volumn (ppmv) to 400 ppmv at a constant exponential rate requires an annual increase of 0.2% each and every year.  That exponential growth rate, therefore, provides an approximate model of the increase in CO2 levels from 1850-2016.  Plugging that into formula (1), we have that each year on average, the forcing goes up by 0.0107 W/m^2 (for a total increase of 1.77 W/m^2).  Because the increase is in forcing is the same each year, the increase in forcing is linear. 

       The temperature increase due to a change in forcing is given by the formula

       2) ΔT =λ x ΔF

       where λ (the lower case greek letter lambda) is the climate sensitivity factor, and ΔT is the change in temperature. For the year to year increase, the relevant climates sensitivity factor would be that for the Transient Climate Response, and is approximately 0.4 ^oC/(W/m²).  That yields a 0.0043 C per annum temperature increase from our model, or an estimated 0.7 C increase in Global Mean Surface Temperature over the interval 1850-2016.  (Of course, it will not be precisely that because CO2 is not the only changing forcing.)  Crucially, because temperature is linearly related to changes in forcing, a linear change in forcing will result in a linear change in temperature.

       That is not some obscure result or fancy theory.  It is the theory you purport to criticize; and that theory predicts that an exponential increase in CO2 concentration will result in a linear temperature increase.  Despite this, you claim that the approximately linear increase in temperature given an approximately exponential increase in atmospheric CO2 disproves the theory.  That is, you claim because the situation is as the theory predicts, the theory is disproven.  Being generous we will attribute that attrocity of reasoning to ignorance, although it takes a lot of gall to so condemn a theory you are so patently ignorant of.

       Finally, as a minor point, the correlation of CO2 concentration to GMST (BEST land/ocean) over the period 1850-2013 is 0.902.  Even your claims of fact are eggregiously false.

        

23694. jobel at 17:39 PM on 16 July 2016
       There's no empirical evidence
       

       It was the third argument that was the important one: “The planet is accumulating heat” which it obviously does. If the heating of the planet was caused by human action then the smoking gun would be a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature but there is none, the number of people and emission of greenhouse gases are increasing exponentially, air and sea temperatures are increasing linearly. The effect could be lagging but then why don't we see a tendency of an exponential curve in temperature? And if the effect is lagging, why do we see such a clear onset of the rise? 

23695. Gingerbaker at 04:55 AM on 16 July 2016
       Aerosol emissions key to the surface warming ‘slowdown’, study says
       

       What?  The "slowdown" is real again? The Return of the Son of the Slowdown Which Could Not Die 2.0.

       I was pretty sure that the "slowdown" was shown to be an artifact of poor polar temperature coverage.

23696. ubrew12 at 03:35 AM on 16 July 2016
       Humans are greening the planet, but the implications are complicated
       

       "Earth’s ecosystem is acting in a way to help mitigate our emissions by absorbing more of our annual release of heat-trapping gases"  Is that true of the ocean ecosystems?  It seems to me a variety of effects (warmer ocean, enhanced thermal stratification) might lead to the ocean being less effective at mitigation rather than more.

23697. swampfoxh at 00:56 AM on 16 July 2016
       We just broke the record for hottest year, nine straight times
       

       very funny, Bob Loblaw.  keep it up

23698. swampfoxh at 00:44 AM on 16 July 2016
       Will the health dangers of climate change get people to care? The science says: maybe
       

       I don't think framing any climate science warning can bear fruit when we test against existing literature about the collapse of civilizations, e.g. "Collapse", by UCLA's Professor Jared Diamond, "The Sixth Extinction",  by Elizabeth Kolbert, (etc. etc. etc.)  It is clear that people opt for preachers, soothsayers, magicians, musicians, "gladiators" and other "feel goods" when faced with such difficulties as presented by: contemporary Global Warming, the Roman faminecollapse circ. 430-444 A.D.,  The southwestern U.S. protracted drought of 1050-1200 A.D. (etc. etc. etc).  Our imminent extinction event will play out similarly to the last Five Big Ones...(the ones without humans on the planet).  Containment of the upcoming cataclysm, as best as global civilation can contain such a dooms-day event, should be the focus of any government's authority.  But, admittedly, there's no way anyone can predict what life will look like on the other side of this catastrophe, assuming there will be an "other side" for the human species.  I suppose I should add that a governmnetal authority built on the U.S. model would be the one least able to cope with remedies... a fact that only adds to the anxiety.

23699. MA Rodger at 21:31 PM on 15 July 2016
       It's the sun
       

       Tom Curtis @1170,

       Your characterisation of Soon et al (2015) as "a smorgasborg of cherry picks" is well founded. One "cherry pick" you could add to the charge-sheet is that Soon et al (2015) fail to address the implications of the Hoyt & Schatten TSI data prior to 1880. Their Figure 8 does plot out the various TSI reconstructions back to 1800 which, if the Hoyt & Schatten (1993) data is accepted as a proxy for NH temperature as Soon et al propose, implies the 1830s NH temperatures would have to be warmer than the 1960s. And if that is a tricky proposition to defend, it must be remembered that the H&S resconstruction is 1700-1992 (see IPCC graph here). The implication of the Soon et al (2015) proposition thus also encompasses the implication that the 1770s were as warm as the 1940s and also as warm as the early 1990s. I think even the bogus methods of Soon, Connolly & Connolly would struggle with defending such a warm 1770s.

23700. Tom Curtis at 14:29 PM on 15 July 2016
       It's the sun
       

       sailingfree @1169, a brief read of Soon, Connolly and Connolly (SC&C)shows it to be a smorgasborg of cherry picks.  They start by cherry picking the ACRIM reconstruction of Satellite measurements of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) in preference to the PMOD reconstruction, or the IRMB reconstruction.  They do this despite the fact that, by their own admission that comparisons of the reconstructions to ground based data were "were slightly
       better for PMOD".  They then cherry pick one of eight reconstructions of TSI since 1850, choosing one with the highest variability in TSI.  From what I know of the issues, neither choice is justified, but I will leave that to be argued by others.

       Moving on, they procede to cherry pick their own NH temperatures series using just rural stations from China, the United States, Ireland and the Arctic Circle.  Last time I looked, there were more locations than that in the NH.  Their resulting reconstruction is significantly different from that using the GHCN (essentially the NOAA temperature reconstruction).  That is odd because Caerbannog has repeatedly shown using randomly selected rural stations chosen to maximize territorial coverage that just a few tens of stations essentially reproduces the standard records:

        

       More troubling than the difference is the cherry pick of a NH only temperature reconstruction.  The NH temperature record is considerably more variable than that of the SH:

       

       Presumably global forcings will have global effect, so that effects seen primarilly in one hemisphere only cannot be attributed to global forcings.  The choice of a NH temperature series (strictly a 3 nation plus Arctic series) invalidates the study without further analysis.

       Proceding further on, SC&C test the correlation between their cherry picked reconstruction of TSI and their cherry picked reconstruction of NH temperatures.  They then assume that CO2 forcing only accounts for the residual of TSI based temperature reconstruction.  This pair wise comparison proceedure is not a valid statistical technique for testing the correlation of multiple factors.  If it were valid, it would generate the same linear dependence between CO2 and temperature regardless of whether you tested CO2 against temperature and TSI against residuals, or the reverse.  As it happens SC&C do test both and show that they do not generate the same factor.  They claim this demonstrates they should use the solar first priority, whereas it actually disproves the validity of their technique.

       Finally, SC&C find a variation in temperature relative to changes of TSI of 0.2112 C/ (W/m^2) (Figure 28 a).  Adjusting for albedo and the fact that the Earth is spherical, that becomes 1.207 C/ (W/m^2) of solar forcing.  For an equivalent forcing to the doubling of CO2, that represents a TCR of 4.465 C.  In contrast, for CO2 they find a change in temperature relative to change in forcing of -0.1039 C/ (W/m^2) (Figure 29 b).  For a doubling of CO2, that represents a TCR of -0.384 C.  

       The TCR of CO2 differs from their stated estimate, which was calculated based on CO2 concentration (Figure 29 a) rather than radiative forcing.  We can default to their stated TCR value of 0.44 C for CO2.  That leaves unexplained why their trend line for CO2 and for CO2 radiative forcing have opposite signs.  It also leaves unexplained why they repeatedly mistate the TCR as being the "climate sensitivity".  The most fundamental problem however is, why is the temperature response to changes in solar radiative forcing 10 times greater than that due to CO2 radiative forcing in their model?  That is an extraordinary result that requires extraordinary explanation.  The default assumption must be that reponse to radiative forcing is approximately the same across all forcings.

       To summarize, even if we ignore their multiple cherry picks - the use of a NH only temperature series; and of singular sequential linear regression rather than multiple regression means the paper is scientific garbage.  Unsurprisingly, it produces a garbage result (temperature responce to solar forcing ten times that due to CO2 forcing).

Prev  466  467  468  469  470  471  472  473  474  475  476  477  478  479  480  481  Next