http://www.real-science.com/ncar-calls-decade-long-global-warming-timeout

Contrary to your claim that you “have a degree is in mathematical physics”, anybody with a shread of Physics training would know that “arithmetic” is not used to describe Vector Quantities.

Wrong. Vector addition is precisely arithmetic, and nothing more.

Likewise, zero Mass Photons do NOT move in the direction of the weaker Electromagnetic Field (Electromagnetic Force), cold to Hot…EVER.

Wrong (also, backwards). Photons have no charge. They mediate the electromagnetic force, but are not themselves subject to it. This is why QED is not QCD. A photon source is not going to magically determine that there’s a stronger source elsewhere and refuse to emit in that direction. The Earth’s surface and atmosphere both radiate (approximately) isotropically; photons travelling in all directions. The total energy carried by the photons travelling from hotter to colder areas is greater than the total energy carried by photons travelling from colder to hotter areas, which is all that’s required to satisfy the second law.

P = e*BC*A(T^4 – Tc^4)

Well done, you can quote formulae. Do you understand it? Did you notice that P is the net radiated power, not the total? If you look at the top of that page, you’ll find that the total radiated power is given by P = e*sigma*AT^4. The total radiated power from the surroundings to the object is given by P = e*sigma*ATc^4. The difference of these two terms is the net radiated power, and will always have the same sign as the temperature difference. The derivation of this formula explicitly assumes energy flow in both directions.

This is an obvious subtraction of two Electromagnetic Field Vectors

Oh, look! Arithmetic!

The resultant Electromagnetic Field will have a magnitude of P/A

Wrong. Power per unit area is not magnitude, but intensity, the rate of energy flux through a surface.

and have a direction of propagation in the direction of the larger field…ALWAYS.

This is the second time you’ve got your own argument backwards. Hotter objects radiate more energy, and so have the ‘larger’ field, as you put it. You should be arguing that the direction of propogation is away from the ‘larger’ field.

“Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c3

Do you see the words “NOT POSSIBLE”???…it is there for a REASON!

Still not understanding the difference between net and gross, I see. Look, if your version was correct, we’d have a serious problem. Because the temperature of the atmosphere does not decrease monotonically. Rather, it decreases through the troposphere (mostly), then increases through the stratosphere. So up around the tropopause, you have a layer of air which is cooler than that both below and above. If your version of thermodynamics were correct, this would be unstable. Energy would flow into this region from above and below, while none could flow out in either direction. The additional energy would heat the region until it reached the same temperature as its surroundings.

Worse still, since photons apparently can’t travel from colder to hotter materials, that means no radiative cooling of anything below the tropopause either, since those photons would have to cross through the stratosphere to escape the atmosphere. The temperature inversion at the tropopause would essentially create an impenetrable barrier through which no heat could flow, and all the energy the Earth’s surface receives from the Sun would be trapped, causing the oceans to boil in pretty short order.

Oddly enough, this hasn’t actually happened.

You asked:
“How stupid do you think climate scientists are exactly?
All the thousands of scientific papers on Global Warming that have passed rigourous peer review, that have been cited in other papers; do you honestly think they would fail a test of basic high school physics and that this would go unnoticed?”

How stupid do Quack climate “scientists” have to be to think that Back-Radiation from a -20 deg C Atmosphere can HEAT-UP a +15 deg C Earth?

How stupid do Quack climate “scientists” have to be to IGNORE ALL ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS that PROVE that the Fantasy “Greenhouse Effect” DOES NOT EXIST?
—–
These so called “scientists” are more stupid than any 4 year-old child, that certainly knows that Cold Objects DO NOT HEAT-UP Warm Objects.
—–
Why don’t you put a Can of warm beer at +15 deg C into a Freezer that is -20 deg C and tell us how much the beer HEATS-UP?

PS: You can put as much CO2 as you want in the Freezer (even 96.5% CO2 like Venus or 95.3% CO2 like Mars) and WRAP THE CAN OF BEER IN A BLANKET.

I look forward to your next post to get the RESULTS.

Maybe some day you will wake-up and face Reality.

You AGW’ers are a real HOOT!

What a HOOT!

You said “All actual surface measurements by “AGWers” (do you mean climatologists btw?) show the average temperature is + 15 C? Really? I don’t think so. Citations please.”

Here are two links:

Instrumental temperature record
“The values in the table above are anomalies from the 1901–2000 global mean of 13.9°C.[43] For instance, the +0.55°C anomaly in 2007 added to the 1901–2000 mean of 13.9°C gives a global average temperature of 14.45 °C (58.00 °F) for 2007.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

Temperature on Earth
All the Five References have Standardized Results for the Average Surface temperature of the Earth is +15 deg C
(Except for 1600 AD which is +16 to + 17 deg C)
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/JudyTang.shtml

There are many,many more….don’t you know how to use GOOGLE?
——-
You said “Where is the source claiming the +15 figure is doing anything other than including the atmosphere please? Is there any statement somewhere where the temperature of the Earth is taken wthout including our atmosphere?”

Here are two links:

Temperature in the Troposphere
“The temperature gets colder as you go upward in the troposphere. Light from the Sun heats the ground. The warm ground gives off the heat as infrared “light”. The IR energy heats the troposphere. The lowest part of the troposphere is the warmest because it is closest to the ground, where the heat is coming from.”
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/troposphere_temperature.html
From the graph you can see that the average temperature of the Troposphere is (+15 at the Earth’s surface + (-55) at the tropopause )/2 = -20 deg C.

International Standard Atmosphere
The base temperature of the Troposphere at ground level is +15 deg C
The Tropopause at 11 km has a temperature of -56.5 deg C.
The average temperature of the Troposphere is -20.75 deg C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Atmosphere
——-
You said “The atmosphere is NOT directly heating the Earth – our Sun heats the earth – incl. the atmosphere a si tried toexplain before.”

The Kiel and Trenberth’s Earth’s annual and global mean energy balance diagram shows that there is:

- 168 w/m^2 of Solar Energy being absorbed by the Earth’s surface.

- 324 w/m^2 of Infrared Back Radiation from the colder atmosphere being ABSORBED by the warmer surface of the Earth.

The Solar Energy is ONLY 168 w/m^2 and is THE ONLY ENERGY SOURCE!!

The Back-Radiation from the Cold Atmosphere is 324 w/m^2 (exceeding the Solar Energy!) and IS DIRECTLY Heating the Earth.
——
You can use the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to find out what the Earth’s surface temperature is for 168 w/m^2 of Solar Energy being absorbed by the Earth’s surface.
The Earth’s surface temperature (TE) would only be:

TE = (168 w/m^2/5.67 X 10^-8)^0.25 = 233.31 K or -39.69 deg C!!!

HAHAHA…HAHAHA….yeah, the Earth COOLED DOWN down from -39.69 deg C to +15 deg C….due to Cold Back-Radiation DIRECTLY Heating a Warmer Earth!
———
You said “So, what you’re suggesting a blanket cools – can only cool – rather than warms? LOL what?”

Radiation emitted by a human body

“The total surface area of an adult is about 2 m^2, and the mid- and far-infrared emissivity of skin and most clothing is near unity, as it is for most nonmetallic surfaces.Skin temperature is about 33 deg C, but CLOTHING REDUCES THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE to about 28 deg C when the ambient temperature is 20 deg C. Hence, the net radiative heat loss is about Pnet = 100 W.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

Blankets can’t increase a human body’s surface temperature of +33 deg C because the body HAS to supply heat energy to the Blanket to increase it’s temperature.

The ONLY way to Increase the Body temperature of +33 deg C is to INCREASE the watts/m^2 ABSORBED by the Body (see the Stefan-Boltzmann Law above)!

Do you think that a DROP in temperature from +33 deg C to +28 deg C is HEATING?

You said “COOLING DOES NOT PRODUCE HEATING no matter how many times you try to say otherwise!..Where have I – or for that matter anyone else – said otherwise.”

How about right from your post:

- “So, what you’re suggesting a blanket cools – can only cool – rather than warms? LOL what?”
- “The only perosn who seems tothink our atmosphere is cooling the planet rather than warming it is you.”

Blankets and the Atmosphere can ONLY COOL….and COOLING IS NOT HEATING….DUH!
——————————–
——————————–
Re:
“The IPCC CO2, so called forcing equation, clearly shows that Mars and Venus should have about the same temperatures because they both have same percentage of CO2 in their atmosphere….and that includes the effect of the SUN as well.”

You said “I doubt that’s correct. But even if so, what about the very different orbits, masses and geological histories of the two planets?”

Venus
“The atmospheric mass is 93 times that of Earth’s atmosphere while the pressure at the planet’s surface is about 92 times that at Earth’s surface…”
Surface temp (mean) 735K or 461.85 deg C
It has an atmosphere that is composed of 96.5% CO2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

Mars, atmosphere
“The surface pressure on Mars is only about 0.7% of the average surface pressure at sea level on Earth.”
It has an atmosphere that is composed of 95.3% CO2.
The surface temp is about 250K or -23 deg C.
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Marsatmos.html

Solar Constants
Venus (2647 w/m^2 – 2576 w/m^2)= average of 2611.5 w/m^2
Mars (715 w/m^2 – 492 w/m^2)= average of 603.5 w/m^2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant#Solar_constant

Heating due to the Solar Constants/4 using Stephan-Boltzman Law and (albedo = 0) gives:

Venus = 327.58 K or +54.43 deg C Black body temp.
Mars = 227.12 K or -46.03 deg C Black body temp.

With the addition of an atmosphere the temp increases are:

Venus = 735K – 327.58K = 407.42K (461.85 C – 54.43 C = 407.42 deg C)
Mars = 250K – 227.12K = 22.88K (-23 deg C -(-46.03 C)= 23 deg C)

——-
The IPCC uses this formula for a calculation of CO2′s relationship to changes in W/m^2 forcing (I will call it delta F).

delta F = 5.35 LN( C/Co) where LN is the natural logarithm, Co is the CO2 in PARTS PER MILLION for a starting point, C is the CO2 in PARTS PER MILLION for analysis and F is the forcing in W/m^2.

The IPCC also uses a figure of 0.297 deg C change per each W/m^2. If we multiply both sides of the formula by 0.297 we will obtain the relationship:

delta T = 1.59 LN ( C/Co) where delta T is the change in temperature (in deg C), C and Co are in PARTS PER MILLION.

Venus has an atmosphere that is composed of 96.5% CO2 or 965,000 PARTS PER MILLION.

Mars has an atmosphere composed of 95.3% CO2 or 953,000 PARTS PER MILLION.

Using the IPCC CO2 “heating formula”, how much warmer should Venus be compared to Mars?

delta T = 1.59 LN (965,000/953,000) = 0.02 deg C!!!

That’s it, Venus should be just 0.02 deg C warmer than Mars using your IPCC Greenhouse Effect “science”!

Venus and Mars have about the same amount of CO2 in their atmosphere (96.5% and 95.3%) yet their temperature increases due to the addition of an atmosphere vary by 407.42 deg C – 23 deg C = 384.42 deg C!

CO2 obviously does NOT have any effect on the temperature increases of these planets.

The Atmospheric Pressure is what causes the difference in temperature:

VENUS ATMOSPHERE PROFILE FROM A MAXIMUM ENTROPY PRINCIPLE

“There one can check,at each height, that using pressure and temperature as
input, the value of density obtained from the equation of
the ideal gases is, in all cases, equal to the experimental
value with a discrepancy lower than 2 per cent.”

“For ideal gases, the equation of state, for 1mol, is
PV = R* T
(where R* = 8.3143 J mol-1 K-1 is the universal gas
constant)”

“FIG. 2: Pressure-temperature profile of the atmosphere of
Venus. The data (black dots) have been taken from Table 1,
and the fitting line is an adiabatic as given by Eq.(19).”

“FIG. 3: Pressure-temperature profile of the atmosphere of
Venus. The data (black dots) come from Table 1 and the
theoretical results (continuous line) have been obtained using
the extended VG method.”

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0609/0609649v1.pdf

This whole paper deals with the heating of the Venus atmosphere due to atmospheric pressure!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=35

&

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/22/antarctica-is-definitely-feeling-the-heat-from-global-warming/

&

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/08/03/new-study-clinches-it-the-earth-is-warming-up/

and there’s waa-aaay more where that came from.

Gord #130 : “.. stop ignoring the Facts ..”

Yes. Please do. Please take your own advice there.

I’ve provided lots of the facts in these last two comments here. Think about that. Please.

There isn’t just one piece of data indicating AGW is real – there are multiple sources, multiple lines of evidence, studies in various fields and, yes, multiple facts demonstrating its reality.

We can argue over the best solutions for mitigating it. That’s legitimate. But we can’t keep denying AGW is real. It is.

I challenge you to provide EVEN ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a WARMER Earth.

If we set aside your fundamental misunderstanding and take this as asking “What is the scientific eveidence for the reality of Anthropogenic Global Warming” then take a look at this :

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/10/26/climate-change-the-evidence/

& this :

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/10/28/from-yellowstones-hills-to-walden-ponds-woods-evidence-of-global-warming/

& this :

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/12/30/insurance-co-blames-global-warming-for-an-especially-disastrous-2008/

Just for starters. There’s plenty more online and in print if folks are genuinely interested in understanding this issue.

Ever hear about the Ideal Gas Law (PV = mRT) where P = Pressure and T = Temperature?

Yes I have.

Do you think that the climatologists who are explaining the Anthropogenic Global Warming Phenomena to us all have not? Really?

How stupid do you think climate scientists are exactly?

All the thousands of scientific papers on Global Warming that have passed rigourous peer review, that have been cited in other papers; do you honestly think they would fail a test of basic high school physics and that this would go unnoticed?

I challenge you to provide EVEN ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a COLDER Atmosphere can HEAT UP a WARMER Earth.

I challenge you to show that anyone is actually claiming that a “colder atmosphere is warming a hotter earth.”

No one is doing so. Which makes your position what’s termed a “Strawman fallacy” – or at best a gross misunderstanding of the theory on your part.

You seem to have read the IPCC AR4 report which you’ve cited but you don’t appear to have understood it very well at all.

You’re rather tediously repeated “challenge” here reveals your misunderstanding of what the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory actually says and how things actually work.

Earth’s atmosphere acts as an insulator and retains heat that would be lost into space otherwise. It is NOT, itself, a heat source.

Just as a blanket traps heat created by your body rather than creating heat intrinisically itself. I am surprised that you seem to find this basic analogy and reality so difficult to grasp.

If you can’t do this, then stop ignoring the Facts and admit that they simply DO NOT EXIST.

What don’t exist? The facts?

Sorry I think you are the one here is ignoring the facts – or at least badly misunderstanding them.

****

PS. Here’s some clarification for some of the sadly numeous typos (sorry) in my earlier post # 135 :

You [#130 Gord] seem to be under the mistaken impression that an atmosphere cools a planet – specifically that Earth’s atmosphere cools our planet – and I was simply using the analogy to reveal your misunderstanding of the situation there.

Our atmosphere, as I’ve already explained, acts to insulate Earth and moderate its temperature variability.

So, what you’re suggesting is that a blanket (our atmosphere in this analogy) cools – can only cool – rather than warms? LOL what?!