Could it all be about an error of elementary physics?

Lord of Planar · Jun 8, 2019

Buzz said:
Another AGW denier and serial misinformer takes a TOA(top of atmosphere) calculation and compares it to surface measurements and then pretends that it proves something.

:lamo

And I have to give credit where credit is due... longview has recently been pushing this same kind of flawed reasoning. It makes me wonder if Willis came up with this himself or if he saw it somewhere else first. At least Willis was smart enough to not associate it with a study that explicitly points out that TOA measurements would be significantly different than surface measurements.

You are arrogant to think you know what you speak of from ignorance. Are you sure the D-K effect is not in play with you?

The levels on the graph, the 506 to 512 W/m^2 is surface radiation, and clearly stated as such. The only lag we have with surface radiation is the few hours from peak radiance to peak temperature, like the noon sun not causing peak warming until 5 PM.

There is no flawed reasoning in the surface radiation idea here.

Again... THESE IS NOT TOA NUMBERS!

The numbers used are clearly marked as "Surface (LW + SW)." By this graph, the earth average, it would mean the 161 + 333, or 494 W/m^2.

Lord of Planar · Jun 8, 2019

Jack Hays said:
Hmmm?

[FONT="]". . . Here is a scatterplot of the monthly global average surface temperature versus the monthly global average downwelling total radiation absorbed by the surface. The total radiation is the sum of the net solar radiation at the surface and the downwelling longwave radiation at the surface. . . . "[/FONT]

I see the D-K effect strong in him.

Jack Hays · Jun 8, 2019

Buzz said:
YES!! Forcing from the doubling of CO2 at the top of the atmosphere(TOA)! AS in NOT the surface.

So what? This is about feedbacks.

Lord of Planar · Jun 8, 2019

Buzz said:
And this part here is exactly why people like you don't get it. It is the net amount of radiation at the TOA that determines whether the planet is going to warm or not. It is not what happens at the surface that determines the loss or gains in heat. To believe that it is all determined by what hits the surface is to ignore the atmosphere and its huge ability to store and release heat.

Think about it, Jack.

The net amount at the TOA simpoly means energy absorbed or energy lost, in the total earth system. Much of this heat is if the form of state changes of water. For example, it takes 2,257 watt-seconds to vaporize 1 gram of water, and there is no temperature change. It takes 333.55 watt-seconds to melt 1 gram of ice, and there is no temperature change.

With increased atmospheric humidity, heat is turned into a state change instead of a temperature change. You guys cannot use the same energy twice.

It is so funny how you alarmists are clueless about chemistry and physics.

Lord of Planar · Jun 8, 2019

Buzz said:
Do you even know where the 3.7 W/m2 comes from?

It is what is calculated to be the change that happens at the TOA with a doubling of CO2.

Come on Jack... it isn't that hard to understand. Or is it?

We know that. It is you who is stuck with the D-K effect, not realizing it is far more complicated than that simplicity.

Buzz · Jun 9, 2019

Lord of Planar said:
The levels on the graph, the 506 to 512 W/m^2 is surface radiation, and clearly stated as such.

Clearly. Nothing wrong with this.

Lord of Planar said:
The only lag we have with surface radiation is the few hours from peak radiance to peak temperature, like the noon sun not causing peak warming until 5 PM.

What your mythical solar lag has to do with anything... I don't know.

Lord of Planar said:
There is no flawed reasoning in the surface radiation idea here.

Yes, there is.

Lord of Planar said:
Again... THESE IS NOT TOA NUMBERS!

And this is where you go completely of the rails...

Look closely at your graphic. The numbers at the top of the illustration are, in fact, top of atmosphere numbers. And the numbers at the bottom are surface numbers.

Lord of Planar said:
The numbers used are clearly marked as "Surface (LW + SW)." By this graph, the earth average, it would mean the 161 + 333, or 494 W/m^2.

Yes, those are the surface numbers. At the bottom, while the TOA numbers are at the top. Is this something you can comprehend?

Because this is where you fail to see the flaw in using a TOA calculation for assessing any climate change. Think about it... since the amounts of energy going back and forth at the surface are larger than the amounts of energy going back and forth at the TOA then using the smaller calculated TOA would bias the results if it is compared to the larger surface measurements. That is why longview and Eschenbach's calculations make the warming look lower than it really is.

Lord of Planar said:
You are arrogant to think you know what you speak of from ignorance. Are you sure the D-K effect is not in play with you?

And it is you who is arrogant to say I am ignorant and suffer from the D-K effect when you are the one getting your facts wrong and failing to see the flaw in your logic.

Buzz · Jun 9, 2019

Lord of Planar said:
The net amount at the TOA simpoly means energy absorbed or energy lost, in the total earth system. Much of this heat is if the form of state changes of water. For example, it takes 2,257 watt-seconds to vaporize 1 gram of water, and there is no temperature change. It takes 333.55 watt-seconds to melt 1 gram of ice, and there is no temperature change.

Yes, I know this. Just like when water freezes or condensates there is heat energy released. That was what I was talking about when I brought up the atmosphere storing and releasing heat energy.

Lord of Planar said:
With increased atmospheric humidity, heat is turned into a state change instead of a temperature change. You guys cannot use the same energy twice.

Nobody is using energy twice.

Lord of Planar said:
It is so funny how you alarmists are clueless about chemistry and physics.

Who is really the clueless one when you completely fail to understand what I'm saying and then unknowingly just repeat what I just said.

Lord of Planar · Jun 9, 2019

Buzz said:
Look closely at your graphic. The numbers at the top of the illustration are, in fact, top of atmosphere numbers. And the numbers at the bottom are surface numbers.

What I responded to was about surface radiation. Not TOA. Please tell me you aren't that daft...

Surface temperature is all about surface radiance. Not TOA. Please learn something for once instead of blathering horse pucky.

It is the earth system as a whole that depends on TOA imbalance as to if it gains or loses energy,

And again, energy is not temperature!

I get sick and tired of trying to have a logical debate with people who simply do not understand the necessary sciences.

D-K EFFECT IN TOP GEAR WITH YOU GUYS!!!

Why do you think that there are no variables that modulate the energy between the TOA and surface?

Do you really think the atmosphere is static, with only CO2 and water feedback as a variable?

Trust me... It's way more complicated than you understand. You keep proving yourself to be an ignorant, arrogant, mouthpiece for the agenda, with no understanding of the ideas you regurgitate.

I suggest you learn a topic you wish to debate. You really make yourself look bad. I pity you.

Buzz · Jun 11, 2019

Lord of Planar said:
What I responded to was about surface radiation. Not TOA. Please tell me you aren't that daft...

Surface temperature is all about surface radiance. Not TOA. Please learn something for once instead of blathering horse pucky.

So... not only did you just decide to completely ignore half of my argument you were also wrong when you claimed that there were no TOA numbers in the graphic you posted.

Lord of Planar said:
It is the earth system as a whole that depends on TOA imbalance as to if it gains or loses energy,

No **** Sherlock. That is what I said.

Lord of Planar said:
And again, energy is not temperature!

Who said it is? Not me. But the amount of energy and the state it is in determines temperature.

Lord of Planar said:
I get sick and tired of trying to have a logical debate with people who simply do not understand the necessary sciences.

I obviously understand it way better than you,

Lord of Planar said:
Why do you think that there are no variables that modulate the energy between the TOA and surface?

I have never said this. Now, why would you think I believe that?

Lord of Planar said:
Do you really think the atmosphere is static, with only CO2 and water feedback as a variable?

Again... never said anything like that.

Lord of Planar said:
Trust me... It's way more complicated than you understand. You keep proving yourself to be an ignorant, arrogant, mouthpiece for the agenda, with no understanding of the ideas you regurgitate.

Trust you!?

:lamo

You can't even make one single coherent and logical argument against my belief that using a TOA calculation to analyze changes in surface radiation is fundamentally wrong. But you are doing great showing your ability to make false assertions, straw man arguments and throw around all kinds of childish insults.

Lord of Planar said:
I suggest you learn a topic you wish to debate. You really make yourself look bad. I pity you.

Have you been drinking again?

Jack Hays · Jun 12, 2019

[FONT=&quot]

Citizen science / Modeling[/FONT]
[h=1]Earth As A Solar Collector[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest post by Kevin Kilty Introduction Within the past week or two we have read posts from Dr. Spencer (6/7/2019), Nick Stokes (6/6/2019), Lord Monckton (6/8/2019), and Willis Eschenbach (6/8/2019) covering a variety of topics involving simple block models; and each one involving, in one way or another, climate feedback. I have had a few…
[/FONT]

Jack Hays · Jun 15, 2019

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[h=1]A Third Look at Radiation versus Temperature[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest post by KEVIN KILTY Introduction In a post on June 8, 2019, Willis Eschenbach showed an interesting plot of monthly average surface temperature against total irradiance absorbed at the ground surface. He has updated this original post. His original figure is at the top of this post. He made no hypothesis about the meaning…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]

Lord of Planar · Jun 15, 2019

I should have responded to this before, but I get tired of repeating things to people who fail to comprehend.

Buzz said:
So... not only did you just decide to completely ignore half of my argument you were also wrong when you claimed that there were no TOA numbers in the graphic you posted.

I never said there was no TOA numbers in the graph. This is why I get so damn short and pissy with you. You claim things never said, apparently because your intelligence is lacking too much to understand.

I was arguing that the TOA doesn't matter when it comes to surface temperature, that it is the surface numbers that matter. It appears that as more longwave from CO2 heats the top few microns of the oceans, that we have more evaporation. More evaporation means more cloud cover. More cloud cover means less solar component to the surface.

Don't you see... It appears the total surface energy has not changes as much as the TOA. They are only loosely coupled, because of the complex dynamics involved.

nekrodev · Jun 15, 2019

could it be that you've been duped by anti-science propaganda and keep making topics about that? i think so.

Jack Hays · Jun 15, 2019

nekrodev said:
could it be that you've been duped by anti-science propaganda and keep making topics about that? i think so.

Yes, you've been duped.

Buzz · Jun 16, 2019

Lord of Planar said:
I should have responded to this before, but I get tired of repeating things to people who fail to comprehend.

I know the felling well.

Lord of Planar said:
I never said there was no TOA numbers in the graph.

Actually, you said this right before posting that graph:

Again... THESE IS NOT TOA NUMBERS!

And that graph clearly had TOA numbers in it. Now I don't know if you misspoke or if you are just oblivious to what that graph showed. But it would be nice if you wouldn't insult me because of your mistake.

Lord of Planar said:
This is why I get so damn short and pissy with you. You claim things never said, apparently because your intelligence is lacking too much to understand.

Cut the crap Lord, you get short and pissy because I point out your mistakes. And the most annoying thing is your constant insults and lack of facts.

Lord of Planar said:
I was arguing that the TOA doesn't matter when it comes to surface temperature, that it is the surface numbers that matter. It appears that as more longwave from CO2 heats the top few microns of the oceans, that we have more evaporation. More evaporation means more cloud cover. More cloud cover means less solar component to the surface.

Quit avoiding my main point... Using a TOA calculation to determine the extent of changes at the surface is wrong. Can you even comprehend this point?

Lord of Planar said:
Don't you see... It appears the total surface energy has not changes as much as the TOA.

And how do you know this? Has Delingpole or longview actually provided any numbers of the change at the TOA? All I have seen them do is take the change at the surface and compare it to the expected change we should see at the TOA.

Lord of Planar said:
They are only loosely coupled, because of the complex dynamics involved.

Yes, loosely coupled... but also significantly different as well. This means that direct comparisons of change can't be made like James and long are doing.

Lord of Planar · Jun 16, 2019

Saying, again, these are not TOA numbers is simply focusing on the surface numbers.

Why is that difficult to understand?

Buzz · Jun 16, 2019

whatever...

Jack Hays · Jun 17, 2019

Consensus? 200+ New 2019 Papers Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarmism

By Kenneth Richard on 17. June 2019
In the first 5½ months of 2019, over 200 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources. . . .

Below are the three links to the list of 2019 papers amassed as of the 17th of June, 2019, as well as the guideline for the list categorization.
[h=1]Skeptic Papers 2019 (1)[/h][h=1]Skeptic Papers 2019 (2)[/h][h=1]Skeptic Papers 2019 (3)[/h]

[h=3]Part 1. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction[/h][h=3]A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions
Warming Since Mid/Late 20th Century?
Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise
Sea Levels Multiple Meters Higher 4,000-7,000 Years Ago
A Model-Defying Cryosphere, Polar Ice[/h][h=3]Part 2. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change [/h][h=3]Solar Influence On Climate
ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence
Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability
Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence
Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Influence
Antarctic Ice Melting In High Geothermal Heat Flux Areas
Mass Extinction Events Caused By Glaciation, Sea Level Fall
The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver?[/h][h=3]Part 3. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling[/h][h=3]Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors and the Pause
Urban Heat Island: Raising Surface Temperatures Artificially
Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies
Wind Power Harming The Environment, Biosphere
Elevated CO2: Greens Planet, Higher Crop Yields
Fire Frequency Declining Since 20th Century Began
Global Warming Reduces Mortality. Cold Kills.
No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes
No Increasing Trend In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity
Natural CO2 Emissions A Net Source, Not A Net Sink
CO2 Change Lags Temperature Change
Miscellaneous[/h]

Jack Hays · Jul 22, 2019

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[h=1]Answer to a whigmaleerie about temperature feedback[/h][FONT=&quot]By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley Some days ago, a prolix, inspissate whigmaleerie was posted here – a gaseous halation, an unwholesome effluvium, an interminable and obscurantist expatiation purporting to cast doubt upon my team’s conclusion that official climatology has misdefined and misapplied feedback and has thus made a mountain out of a molehill, approximately tripling…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]

longview · Jul 23, 2019

Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/22/answer-to-a-whigmaleerie-about-temperature-feedback/"]

[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Answer to a whigmaleerie about temperature feedback[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley Some days ago, a prolix, inspissate whigmaleerie was posted here – a gaseous halation, an unwholesome effluvium, an interminable and obscurantist expatiation purporting to cast doubt upon my team’s conclusion that official climatology has misdefined and misapplied feedback and has thus made a mountain out of a molehill, approximately tripling…[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/22/answer-to-a-whigmaleerie-about-temperature-feedback/"]Continue reading →[/URL][/FONT]
[/FONT]

I do not care for the writing style, but the content is what I have been saying for a while.
If the forcing warming is W, the natural warming is X, the realized feedback warming Y, and the total observed warming is Z,
then W+X+Y must equal Z. If W+X+Y are greater than Z, then there are some unaccounted for negative feedbacks.

Jack Hays · Jul 23, 2019

longview said:
I do not care for the writing style, but the content is what I have been saying for a while.
If the forcing warming is W, the natural warming is X, the realized feedback warming Y, and the total observed warming is Z,
then W+X+Y must equal Z. If W+X+Y are greater than Z, then there are some unaccounted for negative feedbacks.

The Lewis Carroll style is rare in climate science.

[h=1]Jabberwocky[/h]
BY LEWIS CARROLL

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!

Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun

The frumious Bandersnatch!”

He took his vorpal sword in hand;

Long time the manxome foe he sought—

So rested he by the Tumtum tree

And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,

The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,

Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,

And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through

The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!

He left it dead, and with its head

He went galumphing back.

“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?

Come to my arms, my beamish boy!

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”

He chortled in his joy.

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.

longview · Jul 23, 2019

I would just rather technical topics, remain technical!

Could it all be about an error of elementary physics?

Lord of Planar

Lord of Planar

Jack Hays

Traveler

Lord of Planar

Lord of Planar

Buzz

Irritant

Buzz

Irritant

Lord of Planar

Buzz

Irritant

Jack Hays

Traveler

Jack Hays

Traveler

Lord of Planar

nekrodev

pleb

Jack Hays

Traveler

Buzz

Irritant

Lord of Planar

Buzz

Irritant

Jack Hays

Traveler

Jack Hays

Traveler

longview

Jack Hays

Traveler

longview