Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

[Wild Cobra]

You could have just said there's support for the hypotheses. Instead, you claim there's no doubt. Your hypotheses are not even theories yet, and you're claiming they're already proven.

That's an example of dishonesty.

I'm sorry. With the sun, are you saying that if you increase the heat source, the earth doesn't heat up? This is basic thermodynamics. Conservation of mass and energy. The math is proven and simple compared to radiative feedback, which is only hypothetical in modeling. When you increase the received radiation by a given percentage, the earth slowly warms until a balance is achieved where the blackbody radiation that escapes from the earth equals the incoming radiation. Everything else being equal, there is a linear relationship between incoming radiation and the earths average temperature. Where the zero crossing occurs at is what I am uncertain of. I use 55 Kelvin, but it may be far lower or far higher. Indications from others work I have seen tell me it is lower, but I am not firm on any particular number.

At 55 K, we currently have about

0 Celsius = 273.15 Kelvin

15 C ( average global temperature) = 288.15 K

288.15 K - 55 K = 233.15 degrees of warming due to solar radiation and greenhouse gas feedbacks, which increase or decrease in a near linear form relative to incoming radiation.

There is solid paleoclimatology evidence that the sun has increased its output by (I forget) I think 0.2% to 0.3% since the 1700's. I forget the IPCC numbers, but they only then calculate the change in radiative forcing (feedback) and ignore the increased direct heat!

0.2% of 233 = 0.466 degree increase!

Undeniable if the 0.2% increase minimum and 55 K zero crossing is correct.

Are you saying this part of the IPCC data is wrong?

[Winehole23]

Undeniable if the 0.2% increase minimum and 55 K zero crossing is correct.

Are you saying this part of the IPCC data is wrong?

Lemme see if I understand. You're saying the hypothesis is undeniable because it correlates with the IPCC figure for global mean temperature anomaly?

I thought the IPCC was a passel of fascistic lib s. Are you telling me they do science there?

You said you were unsure of the 55 K zero crossing, and you also seem to suggest the 0.2 figure may not be solid. How can you be so sure of your conclusion? Looks like you need to tie up some loose ends.

[Shastafarian]

Lemme see if I understand. You're saying the hypothesis is undeniable because it correlates with the IPCC figure for global mean temperature anomaly?

I thought the IPCC was a passel of fascistic lib s. Are you telling me they do science there?

You said you were unsure of the 55 K zero crossing, and you also seem to suggest the 0.2 figure may not be solid. How can you be so sure of your conclusion? Looks like you need to tie up some loose ends.

I'm also not sure if you can use average temperature in this situation. Radiation from the Sun isn't uniform from what I know. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Winehole23]

I'm also not sure if you can use average temperature in this situation. Radiation from the Sun isn't uniform from what I know. Maybe I'm wrong.

Don't worry. WC will set you right.

[Shastafarian]

Don't worry. WC will set you right.

Maybe his automatons will help him out with some equations.

[Winehole23]

Maybe his automatons will help him out with some equations.

It's not the math he needs help with. His problems are logical and rhetorical.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, why don't you respond to what I posted on page 1?

You were duped. Your pet article is propaganda. It does not address the same facts.

Oh well, that's all that lemmings like you require. Something that sounds good and fits your beliefs.

I don’t actually recommend reading this. But one gem that they propose is that there isn’t a thing called an average temperature. Of course there is. When attempting to derive such a temperature, Gerlich and Tscheuschner arrive at a value of 87.6 C. This is clearly wrong. If the Earth were that warm, humans wouldn’t exist. They then “explain” how climatologists get their value to explain the greenhouse effect as follows:

This fic ious [greenhouse] effect is based on the assumption that one should have an average effective temperature of -18 [degrees] C. One will get this if one weights the solar constant with a factor of 0.7 and inserts a quarter of the solar constant into the “radiative balance” equation. The factor of a quarter is introduced by “distributing” the incoming solar radiation seeing a cross section σEarth over the global surface ΩEarth.

They were calculating surface temperature. with no albedo. It is in this section:

3.7.3 The case of purely radiative balance

If only thermal radiation was possible for the heat transfer of a radiation-exposed body one would use Stefan-Boltzmann's law

Your rebuttal article is pure propaganda. It lies about the paper’s intent and meaning.

Now the embedded quote doesn’t even come from this paper, but one from about 12 years earlier. Translated from German. Assumptions then could be wrong, or incorrectly applied here. For that matter, did this author even reproduce it accurately? Source:

G. Gerlich, “Physical foundations of the greenhouse effect and fic ious greenhouse effects", Talk (In German), Herbstkongress der Europäischen Akademie fur Umweltfragen: Die Treibhaus-Kontroverse, Leipzig, 9. - 10. 11. 1995

[deleted fancy math and explaination that doesn’t apply]

So, for a given A and S0, we can find the effective temperature. In the case of the Earth, the albedo (A) is about 0.3, so 1-A is 0.7, which magically explains where that factor comes from that Gerlich and Tscheuschner couldn’t explain. The factor of 4 is just a consequence of the fact that the Earth can only absorb radiation on the side facing the sun, but emits in all directions. When the values are plugged in, we (and Gerlich and Tscheuschner) get a value of -18 C.

Lie… lie… lie…

The 0.7 represents 0.707, or the cosine of 45 degrees la ude.

Read the damn paper instead of blindly believing this pice of trash.

So, Gerlich and Tscheuschner couldn’t figure out where the magical values of 0.7 and 0.25 [1/4] came from, but they are just misleading their readers. They [should] know how to compute an effective temperature. And they [should] know that such a value exists, and is physically meaningful.

They weren’t trying to explain it. They used other numbers besides 0.7 as examples relative to other la udes.

[Shastafarian]

You were duped. Your pet article is propaganda. It does not address the same facts.

Oh well, that's all that lemmings like you require. Something that sounds good and fits your beliefs.

Again, coming from you that's hilarious. From the same person who lives by, "I don't have the actual facts to back me up, but I'm gonna say some stuff I think is right."

They were calculating surface temperature. with no albedo. It is in this section:

"Therefore, the total energy absorbed by the Earth is related to its albedo and its radius."

Your rebuttal article is pure propaganda. It lies about the paper’s intent and meaning.

Whatever you say Isaac Asimov

Now the embedded quote doesn’t even come from this paper, but one from about 12 years earlier. Translated from German. Assumptions then could be wrong, or incorrectly applied here. For that matter, did this author even reproduce it accurately? Source:

Because the German language is an enigma on the level of Egyptian hieroglyphs of the 18th century.

Lie… lie… lie…

The 0.7 represents 0.707, or the cosine of 45 degrees la ude.

Read the damn paper instead of blindly believing this pice of trash.

Fancy math? I thought robotisticians like you had to use complex equations. But no, let's just throw it away because a robot butler like you says it's "fancy math". I'm not blindly believing anything. I posted a rebuttal I found with a simple google search. You seem to be throwing things away for very stupid reasons (enigma of german grammar, etc).

They weren’t trying to explain it.

Why not?

They used other numbers besides 0.7 as examples relative to other la udes.

Like what?

[Wild Cobra]

Lemme see if I understand. You're saying the hypothesis is undeniable because it correlates with the IPCC figure for global mean temperature anomaly?

No, I'm saying the same data yields different results. I do not dismiss most of the data presented by the IPCC, just their conclusions.

I thought the IPCC was a passel of fascistic lib s. Are you telling me they do science there?

No, they conveniently ignore some science fact to support their political agenda.

You said you were unsure of the 55 K zero crossing, and you also seem to suggest the 0.2 figure may not be solid. How can you be so sure of your conclusion? Looks like you need to tie up some loose ends.

All available evidence has something like 0.2% as the absolute minimum. Without looking it up, I don't clearly recall the number. The 55 K could be more or less. Still, it could not be much higher that that. 100 K would be a real stretch. Even 100 k at 0.2% (smallest realistic numbers) would end up yielding 0.376 degrees of warming change. Blows away CO2 as the leading cause for increase.

The numbers I have seen have solar radiation as about 95% of the heat and tidal forces as about 5%. That would mean that the zero crossing for solar calculations would be about 14 K, not 55 K. At 14 K, the solar influence range is now about 274 degrees rather than 233. 0.2% would be 5.48 ΔT rather than 4.66. At 0.3%, it would be 0.822 degrees of warming!

If I were to try to bend the results, I would use 0.3% and 14 K. I haven't found any solid numbers, so I use 55 K. It is arbitrary. I have said that before. It would be simply impossible for it to be much higher of a zero crossing. I am very confident that using 55 K, I am underestimating the solar change rather than overestimating.

[Wild Cobra]

Again, coming from you that's hilarious. From the same person who lives by, "I don't have the actual facts to back me up, but I'm gonna say some stuff I think is right."

Wrong. I operate withing a given range that is correct.

"Therefore, the total energy absorbed by the Earth is related to its albedo and its radius."

Did I say otherwise?

Again. That part of the original article is looking at surface temperature with no albedo. Your rebuttal mistakes it for tropospheric temperature. They are not the same.

Because the German language is an enigma on the level of Egyptian hieroglyphs of the 18th century.

Will you stop with this bull ?

I did not say or imply that. I said it may have been improperly translated as one possibility.

Fancy math? I thought robotisticians like you had to use complex equations. But no, let's just throw it away because a robot butler like you says it's "fancy math". I'm not blindly believing anything. I posted a rebuttal I found with a simple google search. You seem to be throwing things away for very stupid reasons (enigma of german grammar, etc).

Why not?

Like what?

I understood all of what I read in it after having to refresh some of my skills. I dodn't blindly post an article like you did. I already understood most of it before posting it. It is blatantly obvious you don't under stand the contents.

Why did you post the rebuttal if you didn't believe it? Do you believe everything you google?

[Winehole23]

The numbers I have seen have solar radiation as about 95% of the heat and tidal forces as about 5%. That would mean that the zero crossing for solar calculations would be about 14 K, not 55 K. At 14 K, the solar influence range is now about 274 degrees rather than 233. 0.2% would be 5.48 ΔT rather than 4.66. At 0.3%, it would be 0.822 degrees of warming!

If I were to try to bend the results, I would use 0.3% and 14 K. I haven't found any solid numbers, so I use 55 K. It is arbitrary. I have said that before. It would be simply impossible for it to be much higher of a zero crossing. I am very confident that using 55 K, I am underestimating the solar change rather than overestimating.

Are you sure you didn't use it because it gave you a more precise correlation with the IPCC figure?

[Shastafarian]

I understood all of what I read in it after having to refresh some of my skills. I dodn't blindly post an article like you did. I already understood most of it before posting it. It is blatantly obvious you don't under stand the contents.

I haven't read a single page

Why did you post the rebuttal if you didn't believe it? Do you believe everything you google?

Re-read this and see if the two sentences go together. Maybe you can get C3PO to help.

[Winehole23]

No, I'm saying the same data yields different results.

Huh?

[Wild Cobra]

No, I'm saying the same data yields different results.

Huh?

I meant the same data is used but they have different results in the IPCC than what the sciences dictate.

Poor proofreading on my part.

[Winehole23]

What about my question in #61? Are you ignoring it?

You gotta admit, your "arbitrary" value for zero crossing -- whatever that is -- did yield a strikingly convenient result.

[ClingingMars]

What the are you talkign about? You and Wild Cobra are the only ones that have posted Global warming articles!

idiot.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79916

you've got some reading to do.

[ClingingMars]

Admit it, WC: you do play one on ST.

conservative does not necessarily equal republican anymore. it's why Obama won.

[Winehole23]

conservative does not necessarily equal republican anymore.

You're preaching to the choir.

[Wild Cobra]

Are you sure you didn't use it because it gave you a more precise correlation with the IPCC figure?

The 55 kelvin was a number I found for a different planetary body. Not only that, it fit nice for convenient calculations when I started with a -18 C assumed Earth temperature with no greenhouse effect. If you subtract the 55 degrees from -18, you get -73 C Using 0 C = 273 K, that leaves a convienient 200 degree range for solar heating of the Earth with no greenhouse effect.

Again, other information I find tells me the 55 K is a high number, that the Earth's tidal forces would generate less heat. I'm thginking it was 5%, but I'm uncertain. Again, 5% of 288 K would only be 14.4 K rather than 55 K. For 55 K to be right, the tidal forces would have to generate 19.1% of the Earths heat. That is obviously high. I purposely err on a number that does not inflate my case.

I wish I bookmarked the information I found before. I would like to show it to you. It was a credible site link. I think it was the Earth Sciences section at the NASA site.

[Wild Cobra]

I took another look for information of the Earths temperature if there was no solar radiation. I still haven't found it, but here is an absolutely great article on Tidal Energy:

Millennial Climate Variability: Is There a Tidal Connection?

[Winehole23]

Thanks for the link, WC.

You sound sincere enough. I do believe that you believe what you say. It helps explain why you're so hotheaded and intolerant of anything contrary.

If you could manage somehow to disagree with people without being so disrespectful to them personally, they might be more considerate of your views.

My 2cents.

Ahuevo.

[spurster]

I am a little tired of the scientists are propagandists schick.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

[Wild Cobra]

Thanks for the link, WC.

You sound sincere enough. I do believe that you believe what you say. It helps explain why you're so hotheaded and intolerant of anything contrary.

If you could manage somehow to disagree with people without being so disrespectful to them personally, they might be more considerate of your views.

My 2cents.

Ahuevo.

If you notice, I tend not to get that way with you. before I've noticed you here, I have had some history with a few others. However, I do get pissed easily if I don't get my sunlight. What do they call it? Seasonal Distress Disorder?

I tell you, I'm a firm believer. Tanning beds really help keep me in check in the winter.

As for believing what I say. Most definitely. What science do the alarmists have other than justifying over the years CO2 correlations with temperature, using models designed just off that premise? I have repeatedly shown why those models are incorrect. So have several scientists.