Why CO2 does not govern the earth's surface temperature

Nope, you haven't.

No such thing.

Nope, you do.

I already told you.

No, this is where I yet again explain to you that this is the whole point that I am making. A person IS a source of heat. A rock is not. THAT is why blankets work. It is not the blanket itself doing the warming, as I have already explained. You are supporting my argument FOR me.

Precisely my point, yet again. You continue to support my argument FOR me.

Ignoring the "greenhouse gas" term, this is correct.

Basically correct, less the "re-emitting" nonsense. Also note that only a narrow spectrum of it can be absorbed by such gases, and this will raise the temperature of those gas molecules somewhat. The oceans and ground have cooled and the gas molecules have warmed.

It is not the blanket that is warming the person, dude... I have already explained what is going on in that scenario.

No, you didn't. You are ignoring the fact that the function of a blanket is to act as a coupling reducer between warmer trapped air underneath the blanket (heated by the person underneath the blanket) and colder air outside the blanket.

Air is not being trapped by "greenhouse gases". The atmosphere is an open convective system.

This is correct.

This is completely and utterly wrong.

I never said that his energy consumption changed. I said that less energy is required in order for him to regulate his body temperature.

A sweater does not warm an iguana.

Yes it is.

RAAA. Blankets do not warm people. "Greenhouse gases" do not warm Earth.

 

CO2 is not a blanket.

 

Yes I have.

Already proved false. I provided a definition, and various gases meet that definition.

Wrong.

No, you just claimed, absurdly and nonsensically, that blankets do not warm people, who presumably buy them for purely decorative reasons.

No it isn't. You claim a blanket doesn't warm a person any more than it warms a rock. That claim is objectively false.

And a blanket retards the loss of that heat to the atmosphere just as greenhouse gases retard the loss of heat from the earth's surface to outer space.

You just said they don't work, implying that people only buy them for their decorative value.

No, you are making absurd claims, as usual.

No, you are making false claims.

I've already stipulated that "greenhouse gas" is a misnomer. Call them "blanket gases."

It's not nonsense. It is the crucial phenomenon. Your ignorance of it merely confirms you don't understand the basic physics. IR radiation absorbed by blanket gases is re-emitted almost immediately.

So you agree that blanket gases warm the atmosphere.

No, I explained it to you.

Yes I did.

No, you are ignoring the fact that blanket gases have a similar decoupling effect between the warmth of the earth's surface and the cold of outer space.

Strawman fallacy. I already stipulated that "greenhouse gas" is a misnomer, and they warm the earth by slowing radiative heat transfer, not blocking convection.

The only time you are right is when you admit that I am right.

Wrong.

Which is wrong.

Also wrong.

Proving you wrong.

You know you have to be wrong when you have to resort to such absurdities.

I've explained exactly how they do.

 

RAAA (repetitive argumentation already addressed)

I am not going to keep repeating myself. People can see for themselves that you are completely wrong about how a blanket works.

 

But not refuted. I repeat arguments because you just repeat the same fallacies and absurdities those arguments already demolished. See how that works?

Good.

People can see for themselves that you are completely wrong about how a blanket works.

 

No, because he (Scafetta) left out much of the research from before it was published.

Here's a spreadsheet with all of the papers making estimates of climate sensitivity.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Bw2XU3FCw9a__Z5Y9YGfCWU-ohzuhFJ8_gcGyIsTECE/edit#gid=0

I count 113 papers from 2001 to 2015. Scafetta's "study" included about 30. He left out most the higher estimates.

If I could find that data in just a few minutes, someone writing a paper on the topic has no excuse to not have found it. Scafetta was fudging by deliberately cherrypicking.

 

Interesting. You seeem to be claiming that the directly measured stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation and decrease in OLR in the GHG bands is a fallacy.

I imagine that has something to do with such data debunking your relgious beliefs. After all, there is no natural explanation for that data. Only AGW theory explains it.

Temps didn't start rising fast until about 1970, when solar activity began dropping. For your theory to be right, colossal amounts of heat must have been stored in the oceans, just waiting to burst forth at a later date. It wasn't. The ocean temperature record shows that. Your theory would require currently cooling or warming-at-a-slowing rate ocean. We don't see that. We see warming-at-an-acclerating rate oceans. Since the data contradicts your theory, your theory is wrong.

The simplest theory that explains all of the data is most likely to be the correct theory. That's AGW theory. Your theory is contradicted by the observed data, therefore your theory is wrong. It really is that simple. Invoke all the conspiracies you can, and you will, but you'll still just be wrong.

 

This rapidly degenerates into an argument about what is and is not a conclusion about climate sensitivity. I'll take Scafetta's word over yours.

 

Solar activity did not drop in the 20th century.

 

Some criteria for inclusion are necessary. You are entitled to yours, and he is entitled to his.

No it isn't. Hundreds of papers have made estimates of climate sensitivity, with varying levels of credibility and scientific basis.

So who picked them? On what basis? FYI, Scafetta's data ended in 2014, so AT LEAST 17 of the 80-some papers you are claiming Scafetta dishonestly excluded were in fact published after his cut-off date. I wish I could say I was surprised to see such misleading and disingenuous slanting of the facts from anti-fossil-fuel hate propagandists, but it has effectively become routine practice for them.

Maybe because the higher estimates were in lower-quality papers, and he didn't want to be accused of stacking the deck -- which you are of course accusing him of doing anyway.

Where is it from?

Garbage. The gravamen of his conclusion is confirmed by YOUR OWN DATA: of the 16 papers on YOUR OWN LIST published before 2006, NOT ONE had a mean estimated ECS of less than 2. Of the 30 papers published between 2016 and 2018, SEVEN do. So the decline in estimated ECS is confirmed by the papers published AFTER Scafetta noted it in his paper. Hypothesis confirmed by subsequent observation!

 

No, you simply made that up. The fallacy is in attributing all changes in atmospheric measurements to increased CO2.

Strawman. The artificial increases in GHGs, soot and other low-albedo particles, night-time heat-releasing activities, contrails, deforestation, etc., etc. are not natural, but they help explain the data, and do not imply AGW theory.

Wrong. Non-AGW theory accounts for the non-surface-temperature effects of GHGs and other human influences on measurable atmospheric phenomena without assuming surface warming by CO2.

That's just baldly false. Temperatures rose rapidly from ~1910-1940. This was visually obvious on graphs of global temperature produced before the data were retroactively altered to agree with AGW theory.

That is a highly misleading and disingenuous interpretation. Solar activity dropped after the reaching the highest level ever observed around 1960, but remained at historically high levels until the 21st century. As there is great thermal inertia in the oceans, surface and atmospheric temperatures could be expected to continue rising as long as solar activity remained above historical norms, and even for some years afterwards.

No, my theory implies no such thing. You simply made it up. You do that a lot.

No it doesn't. Ocean temperatures have not been known accurately enough for long enough to make any such claim.

No, that is just another strawman fallacy from you.

No we don't. If the oceans were warming at an accelerating rate, we would see arctic sea ice decreasing. We don't. It reached its cyclical low in 2012.

There are no data that contradict my theory. You just falsely claim they do based on your own incorrect interpretations of what my theory implies.

Garbage. AGW theory not only does not come close to explaining all the data, it is baldly contradicted by the data.

False. All observed data are consistent with my theory.

No, because my theory is not the simple one your strawman fallacies claim it is.

"Observed" data can be massaged, edited, altered, falsified. My theory will continue to be proved correct, and AGW theory incorrect, by actual physical events.

 

There is no paradox. Earth is radiating more due to trapped heat by the atmosphere. However, the amount of heat going out to space
is exactly the same with an atmosphere as without an atmosphere. That is because a large proportion of the heat absorbed from the Earth's
surface by the atmosphere is emitted at a lower temperature than the surface of the earth, which means at a much lower radiance than the earth.
That is what my post #268 is showing. In order to accept this explanation, you would have to admit that you were wrong. That
seems to be the problem. Notice from the graph on post 268 that carbon dioxide, water vapor and ozone are all radiating at a temperature
below 255 degrees C, the effective temperature of the earth. You can see from the graph that the actual radiation as observed from space,
shows that the 255 degree C. blackbody curve emits about the same amount of radiation as the Earth's surface and atmosphere taken together.
That is the black curve. What you have failed to grasp is that most of the Earth's
radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and the atmosphere is considerably cooler than the Earth's surface.


There are some climate scientists with advanced degrees who say that net flow of heat from a hot object to a cooler object, when considering radiation, is the criteria to use when trying to determine if the 2nd law of thermodynamics has been violated. That makes sense to me because it is a statistical law.
The net flow of heat is from the surface of the earth to the atmosphere so there is no violation of the second law. A more rigorous test would be
to calculate the entropy change of the earth-atmosphere system when the atmosphere is perturbed by adding a gas like carbon dioxide.

The second law of thermodynamics claims that it is impossible for heat to spontaneously flow from a cold body to a hot body. That isn't happening
with the earth-atmosphere system. It is an open system in thermal equilibrium with the sun supplying a constant source of energy.
The law states that it is impossible for any process to have as its sole result heat transfer from a cooler to a hotter object. In the earth-atmosphere
system, both the Earth's surface and the atmosphere warm simultaneously when we add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the Earth's surface
is radiating more energy to the atmosphere than the atmosphere is radiating to the earth's surface. So, neither of the 2 statements about the
2nd law are being violated. There is no physical law that prevents clouds from emitting radiant energy to the surface of the earth at night. The clouds
are cooler than the Earth's surface temperature.

 

What happens if we put a cold body next to a hotter body and enclose the two objects in a thermally insulated system containing a vacuum.
Net heat flow will be from the hot body to the cold body but some heat will flow from the cold body to the hot body. All objects at any temperature
above absolute zero emit thermal radiation so the cold body must emit radiation and some of that radiation is in the direction of the hotter body.
The entropy of the system will increase. One cannot just consider only the heat flow of the cold body to the hotter body. No one that I know of has been able to
show a decrease in entropy as a result of the greenhouse effect.

I copied the description below about the 2nd law of thermodynamics from the: The Real Second Law of Thermodynamics | The Science of Doom

Conclusion
Entropy is a conceptually difficult subject, but all of us can see the example in “the special case” and agree that the picture is correct.

However, the atmosphere – surface interaction is more complex than that simple case. The surface of the earth receives energy from the sun and the atmosphere.

As we have seen, in simple examples of radiant heat exchange between two bodies, entropy is still positive even when the hotter body absorbs energy from the colder body. This is because more energy flows from the hotter to the colder than the reverse.

To prove that the second law of thermodynamics has been violated someone needs to demonstrate that a system is reducing entropy. So we would expect to see an entropy calculation.

Turgid undergraduate books about heat transfer in university libraries all write that radiation emitted by a colder body is absorbed by a hotter body.

That is because the first law of thermodynamics is still true – energy cannot be created, destroyed, or magically lost.

 

You're doing that thing again where you pretend any evidence that contradicts you doesn't exist. And that's very uninteresting in one way. In a different way, it's interesting as a study in abnormal psychological.

You're projecting. The climate scientists look at all factors, while you immediately discard the effects of CO2, purely because of your ideological bias.

They don't explain the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, or the increase in OLR in the GHG bands, leaving your theory still ... wrong.

This is one reason why it's so good to be on the rational side. We simply follow where the data leads. You have a predetermined politically-dertermined conclusion, forcing you to declare that all contrary data is faked. That makes you look ridiculous.

That's a reasonable theory to put forth, until you look at historical ocean temperatures. They say that theory is wrong, so it's wrong.

Incredulity fallacy. Your ignorance of the data won't make the data go away.

Yet you can't show how.

Look at all that "BECAUSE I SAY SO!". Has it gotten you any converts to your religion?

 

Scafetta's were picked on the basis of whether they matched the curve he wanted to make, and we are entitled to point out how borderline fraudulent that is.

Let's pick a year. 2013.

I see 19 separate papers there. 14 have ECS >2. 5 have ECS <=2.

Guess which group Scafetta picked exclusively from? Yep, the latter.

That's cherrypicking taken to comical levels. And here you are defending it. Is this really the hill where you want to sacrifice the last of your credibility?

 

Scafetta's paper was peer-reviewed and published. You're just a guy on the internet.

 

No, that's self-evidently false, as the scatter plot is all over the place. I repeat: where did your list of papers with ECS estimates come from -- i.e., on what basis did you select the papers YOU cherry-picked?

OK. On what basis did you pick that year?

Oh, wait a minute, that's right: you cherry-picked it to match your borderline libelous claim.

How did you cherry-pick those 19 papers?

Oh, wait a minute, that's right: you picked them because they support your claim.

With 15 years to pick from, and an average of only two papers per year, such statistical anomalies are inevitable.

And you are the one who did it.

You haven't provided any evidence that your list is any more impartial or less cherry-picked than Scafetta's, and I doubt you ever will. But unlike your list, Scafetta's passed peer review.

 

He is playing a deflection game, one where he tries to delegitimize what Dr. Scafetta left out while never showing what he actually published was wrong at all.

CO2 is a trace gas with tiny IR absorption range that is mostly OUTSIDE of the main OLWR outflow range.

Once again to show how tiny the warm forcing increase is after 250 years:

"Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.5 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation."


The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise..

LINK

======

LOLOLOLOL!!!

CO2 is their bogeyman that will be their undoing when the world once again start its inevitable cooling down trend.

 

Pretending that a paradox doesn't exist doesn't make it go away.

Paradox A (with a third position added) ...

[1] Earth is radiating LESS due to "trapped heat".
[2] Earth is radiating MORE due to "trapped heat".
[3] Earth is radiating THE SAME due to "trapped heat".

You need to clear your paradox, not add to it...

Gibberbabble, since Paradox A has yet to be cleared.

Did you know that the surface and the atmosphere are both parts of the Earth?

I'm not wrong. You are currently stuck in paradox... You need to clear Paradox A before you can hold any intelligent conversation on this matter. Currently, you are arguing irrationally.

The temperature of the Earth is unknown. It is nowhere near 255degC at the surface though, or else we'd all be dead.

Gibberbabble.

What you have failed to grasp is that the atmosphere and the surface ARE ALL A PART OF what we call EARTH. When one speaks of "Earth's radiation", one speaks of the entirety of Earth... That includes its atmosphere, its surface, its core, etc...

Climate scientists are not science. Advanced degrees are not science. There is no such thing as "net flow" of heat. Heat only flows from hot to cold.

It is gibberbabble. There is no such thing as "net flow" of heat.

There is no such thing as "net flow" of heat.

There is no such thing as an "earth-atmosphere system". The atmosphere is a part of Earth. It is included when you use the word Earth. CO2 does not "perturb" the atmosphere. It naturally exists in the atmosphere and is a life essential gas.

Yup. Heat only flows from hot to cold, not the other way around.

There is no such system. The atmosphere IS A PART OF EARTH.

You cannot switch between systems... There is no sun in existence in an "earth-atmosphere" system (I'm not sure if you actually mean an Earth system or a surface-atmosphere system)...

That's not what it states.

It states that, at any given time in any given closed system, entropy is always increasing (or staying the same). IOW, heat only flows from hot to cold, not from cold to hot.

There is no such system, since the atmosphere is already a part of the Earth.

CO2 does not warm Earth's surface.

There is no such thing as "net flow" of heat.

The 2nd law is being egregiously violated in your description of events. So is the Stefan Boltzmann Law. --- Your description of events is also still locked in Paradox A.

No atom will accept a photon that has less energy than the atom itself already has.

 

No, you are pretending that I rejected empirical evidence when what I clearly rejected was your claim about what my theory says.

Beneath contempt.

Right. But anti-fossil-fuel scaremongers are not climate scientists.

Wrong again. CO2 has a lot of effects on the thermal regime above the altitude where water vapor becomes scarce. Just not below it.

Sure they do. Stratospheric cooling has been caused by the effect of increased CO2 on the emission altitude and the decline in solar UV since 2000.

Strike One.

The increase in back radiation is caused by increased contrail altitude, size and persistence due to increased commercial aircraft cruising altitudes, and human nocturnal heat-releasing activities.

Strike Two.

And the increase in OLR in the GHG bands is caused by increased CO2 in the upper troposphere and stratosphere where water vapor is too scarce to dominate CO2.

That's Strike Three, Casey. You're out.

Nope. Angstrom proved you don't over 100 years ago.

No, only the faked data are faked. And we know they are faked because it has been proved repeatedly.

No, they say no such thing. You simply made it up.

No, the data you claim support your claims simply do not exist. Deep ocean temperatures have not been known reliably and accurately enough for long enough. That is just a fact.

I already have, many times. Angstrom proved AGW theory false over 100 years ago, and any competent undergraduate physics student can do the same with readily available lab equipment. Adding CO2 to ordinary sea-level atmospheric air simply does not alter its IR transmissivity enough to have any significant effect on surface temperature.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

I'm not the one peddling the apocalyptic prophecies here, champ. You are.

 

I don't think I've seen this approach before. I'll be most interested in this discussion.

Veteran Chemical Engineer: Recent Warming Likely Caused By Relative Humidity Decrease, Not CO2 GHG
By P Gosselin on 15. September 2021

Share this...
Global Warming Driven by Relative Humidity Decrease, Not CO2 GHG! Solution: More Ocean Evaporation
By David R. Motes



Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is quantitatively driven by a steady relative humidity decrease of 0.13%/year throughout the troposphere since 1970 per the chart below, and not CO2 GHG (Green House Gas). The resulting evaporation reduction is a 3 factor larger AGW driver than CO2 GHG theory. These quantitative facts are based on calculations using consensus scientific data and diagrams from CO2 GHG proponent sites such as the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, and the International Energy Agency. The main points of the linked 29-page paper pdf follow: . . .

 

The evidence continues to mount.
Nearly 140 Scientific Papers Detail The Minuscule Effect CO2 Has On Earth’s Temperature
By Kenneth Richard on 13. January 2022

Share this...
We have updated our “Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity” scientific paper list with new papers added from 2021 and some newly discovered papers from the past.
As of 2016 this list had only 50 papers on it (as indicated by the web address). In less than 6 years the list has grown to 137 (as of today).

Click on the link for the full list.

135+ Papers Find Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity . . . .

 

Ah! Your favourite blog “No trick zone” which I am sure, will have either used dodgy sources or misrepresented and misquoted the papers linked

Want to put money on that is what I find?

BTW if this is so ground breaking why was it not submitted to the IPCC?

I am also betting on a response that will be an ad hominem

 

Please let us know what you find.

 

Awaiting evidence for this claim.

Maybe you will "find" what you are looking for but others will be unable to see it.

What makes you think it wasn't? The IPCC's record of incorporating dissenting views and research results in its reports is not encouraging.

Wrong again.