2014 hottest year on record

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/w....&region=Footer&module=TopNews&pgtype=article

UN climate conf done.

China resolves to do: absolutely nothing but talk, and pollute. India promises to look at possibly starting to reduce the rate of increase of pollution and greenhouse gas production. Note; They do NOT promise to reduce anything, or even reduce the increases, but they promise that they'll talk about it - sometime in the future - maybe.

What crap. Way to go UN, you really got something done there! (not)

China statement: “The success of this has laid a good foundation for success of Paris,” said Xie Zhenhua, China’s vice minister of National Development and Reform Commission. “Next year all of us, all countries, will continue to demonstrate our ambition, flexibility and confidence,” he said.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: My BS detector is flashing red and going whooop! whooop! whooop!
 
No. This is a misconception, and I'm not sure where you're getting it. I hesitate to say more... there is some deep confusion behind what you're saying but I can't put my finger on it.

A blackbody *absorbs* all of the energy incident on it and *radiates* according to the S-B law. The S-B law relates the rate at which it radiates to its *temperature*. If exposed to radiation, the object warms until it reaches an equilibrium where energy in equals energy out. That doesn't necessarily mean that it *radiates* all of the energy it receives, if some of that energy is leaving some other way (e.g. by thermal conduction).

Not sure if I'm getting at the source of your confusion... so I'll leave it there for now.

Here is my "confusion":

1. An equation (accepted science) calculates Earth mean temp at -18F
2 Actual Earth mean temp approx 59F
3. NASA, NOAA and everyone else, says the entire temp discrepancy can be attributed to the "Greenhouse Effect ".
4. NASA computes Moon surface temperatures for various moon times. NASA uses the same accepted equation.
5. There is a discrepancy between the temps NASA calculated and the actual observed temps on the Moon.
6. Since the Moon has no atmosphere, the discrepancy can not be attributed to a "Greenhouse Effect".
7. Since the temp discrepancy on the Moon can not be attributed to a Greenhouse Effect, the discrepancy must be due to other reason(s)
8. The entire temp discrepancy on Earth is due to the Greenhouse Effect.
9. The temp discrepancy on the Moon is due to reason(s) other than a Greenhouse effect.
10. Therefor, there are no overlapping ( common) reason for the temp discrepancy that is found on the Earth as well as the Moon.

IOW, the Moons temp can be warmer than expected without a Greenhouse Effect, but somehow, the Earth can only be warmer than expected due to a
Greenhouse Effect.
Edit: NASA found that the day time temps on the moon were on average 20 C cooler than expected. The night time temps were on average 60C warmer than expected. For a 40C average warmer than expected temp on the moon.
 
Last edited:
Really, your own posts demonstrate that you are not even sure how the Greenhouse Effect works.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an expert in the field. There is a lot about the details that I'm not sure of, such as which mode of heat transfer dominates in transporting the trapped outgoing IR back to the surface. I had thought it was mostly convective, but I believe now that it is mostly by radiation, just not radiation directly from GHGs.

I'm still learning this subject - go to the experts if you want a definitive answer on the inner workings of the Greenhouse effect.

(I think you've already made up your mind that it doesn't exist, though, which is unfortunate since it means you aren't going to learn anything about it.)
 
Azure, do you agree or disagree with this statement. The Earth is 33C warmer than accepted calculations , and this is due entirely to a Greenhouse Effect of some sort? Exact mechanism doesn't matter.
I don't know the exact figure and it depends on how you calculate the Earth's temperature. There are many different ways of computing an average temp. And there are several different blackbody temperatures involved as well, none of which need agree with most of the "averages". But yes, I think MOST of the difference between the Moon's blackbody temperature and that of the Earth's surface is due to the Greenhouse effect.
 
The surface properties I was referring to have to do with how well the surface layers conduct heat and how much the temperature changes for a given input of heat (heat capacity). Those properties don't determine whether an object radiates like a blackbody. An object radiates like a blackbody if it radiates a total energy per unit time per unit area equal to sigma x T^4 where sigma is the S-B constant. It doesn't have to radiate all of the energy incident on it, it can store some of that energy. NASA's calculations were probably wrong not because the Moon isn't a blackbody but because it can store some of that heat just below the surface. So their model didn't correctly predict the surface temperature over the course of a day, but the real surface temperature as a function of time still is such that the surface radiates away the same amount of energy, averaged over a day, as they assumed it did.

Something else you're missing is that an object can behave as a blackbody very well at one wavelength and very poorly at others. The Earth and Moon are obviously not blackbodies at visible wavelengths, so if they were as hot as the Sun, the blackbody approximation would be a very bad one. In the IR, where they emit most of their radiation, it's a very good one.

So the NASA calculation for the moon was wrong, because they didn't anticipate some variables. But the NASA calculation for the Earth, which has a gazillion more variables than the moon, -18 F is right.

What do you mean by "real surface temperature". We take temp readings all over the Globe, the temp we see on the thermometer. We average them out and determine if we are getting warmer or cooler. How are the actual observe temperatures on the moon any different? How are they not real?

You don't make any sense.
 
Really, your own posts demonstrate that you are not even sure how the Greenhouse Effect works. Again, most of your arguments are ad hominem, and arguments of authority. You miss the whole point of the paper, which is that neither the moon or the Earth behave like a black body, an assumption of the equation. Makes perfect sense since they aren't actually Black Bodies. You are so blinded by personal bias that you won't even admit that blatant fraud has been committed. You rely on computer models where the outcome is determined before you even have the results.

These guys are "crackpots", yet the models where the "real" physics and math are plugged in can't get it right, but there is always an excuse why it is not right. Does it ever occur to them that maybe they don't have it right. Instead of calling them crackpots, why don't you label them heretics, that would be more appropriate.

The real crackpots are in the MMGW crowd who have abandoned the scientific method completely.


That is not my understanding of how the programs work. The are basically an outgrowth of the same logic functions and energy/effect models that were developed to predict nuclear bomb yields and destruction without having to actually test fire weapon. There is no "predictive outcome", it just models interactions of energy as set forth by the laws of physics as we understand them.
 
Here is my "confusion":

1. An equation (accepted science) calculates Earth mean temp at -18F
2 Actual Earth mean temp approx 59F
3. NASA, NOAA and everyone else, says the entire temp discrepancy can be attributed to the "Greenhouse Effect ".
4. NASA computes Moon surface temperatures for various moon times. NASA uses the same accepted equation.
5. There is a discrepancy between the temps NASA calculated and the actual observed temps on the Moon.
The fallacy here is: NASA used an equation. Their predictions were in error. Therefore the equation is wrong. Non sequitur. It could be another assumption that NASA made that accounts for the discrepancy. In fact, I'm confident it had to be. Most likely they neglected thermal conduction and heat capacity. I would have too, if I had no way to estimate them, and if all I cared about was a ballpark value for the temperature.
6. Since the Moon has no atmosphere, the discrepancy can not be attributed to a "Greenhouse Effect".
7. Since the temp discrepancy on the Moon can not be attributed to a Greenhouse Effect, the discrepancy must be due to other reason(s)
The temp discrepancy on the Moon is NOT between the measured blackbody temperature (based on IR radiation coming from the Moon) and the known incoming solar energy flux. Those two are extremely likely to be in balance.

IOW, the Moons temp can be warmer than expected without a Greenhouse Effect, but somehow, the Earth can only be warmer than expected due to a
Greenhouse Effect.
The Moon's blackbody temperature is not warmer than expected. The Earth's surface's blackbody temperature is. That's the difference.
Edit: NASA found that the day time temps on the moon were on average 20 C cooler than expected. The night time temps were on average 60C warmer than expected. For a 40C average warmer than expected temp on the moon.
Actually the daytime maximum of the temperature curve was sharper and the nighttime minimum much broader. The difference is less than 20C except for a brief time near the peak. So if you do a time average, the discrepancy is even GREATER than 40C. It still doesn't change anything, in fact it HAS to be that way in order for the Moon to emit the predicted amount of energy, because the 20C reduction in peak daytime temps (up around 400K) *reduces* the total emitted radiation per unit time more than the 60C increase at night (down around 100K) increases it - because of the T^4 dependence - again, according to the S-B equation.

My last post for a while. I have to go give a final exam, then rush to get final grades in. :(
 
Sunlight is far from the only natural energy heating our climate. The biggest factor is the deep sea vents, all of that heat is absorbed by the ocean with no fast way out.
 
That is not my understanding of how the programs work. The are basically an outgrowth of the same logic functions and energy/effect models that were developed to predict nuclear bomb yields and destruction without having to actually test fire weapon. There is no "predictive outcome", it just models interactions of energy as set forth by the laws of physics as we understand them.

A nuclear weapon is several orders of magnitude simpler than the earth's climate and still requires massive amounts of computing power to simulate. Modeling climate is a gargantuan (I always wanted to use that word in a sentence) task of energy transfer computations. The surface of the earth is inhomogeneous. The oceans and atmosphere are complicated three dimensional bodies with irregular mixing and heat transfer. Absorption and reflection of Solar radiation at multiple frequencies is highly variable. Cloud cover is highly variable and unpredictable. Decomposition of organic matter produces carbon dioxide variably based on multiple factors including temperature. Carbon dioxide reacts variably with plants and many substances under a wide variety of circumstances.

But the climate scientists have distilled everything down to a handful of factors and have chosen carbon dioxide produced by man as a key player and modeled the effects of everything else by making ridiculous assumptions and simplifications. Their model is designed to show the need to have our lives controlled by the scientist's funding benefactors. Who could argue with any of that?
 
Last edited:
A nuclear weapon is several orders of magnitude simpler than the earth's climate and still requires massive amounts of computing power to simulate. Modeling climate is a gargantuan task of energy transfer computations. The surface of the earth is inhomogeneous. The oceans and atmosphere are complicated three dimensional bodies with irregular mixing and heat transfer. Absorption and reflection of Solar radiation at multiple frequencies is highly variable. Cloud cover is highly variable and unpredictable. Decomposition of organic matter produces carbon dioxide variably based on multiple factors including temperature. Carbon dioxide reacts variably with plants and many substances under a wide variety of circumstances.

But the climate scientists have distilled everything down to a handful of factors and have chosen carbon dioxide produced by man as a key player and modeled the effects of everything else by making ridiculous assumptions and simplifications. Their model is designed to show the need to have our lives controlled by the scientist's funding benefactors. Who could argue with any of that?

Well said Gary.

For years the models used by the "experts" calculated the sun's energy as a constant. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Here is my "confusion":

1. An equation (accepted science) calculates Earth mean temp at -18F
2 Actual Earth mean temp approx 59F
3. NASA, NOAA and everyone else, says the entire temp discrepancy can be attributed to the "Greenhouse Effect ".
4. NASA computes Moon surface temperatures for various moon times. NASA uses the same accepted equation.
5. There is a discrepancy between the temps NASA calculated and the actual observed temps on the Moon.
6. Since the Moon has no atmosphere, the discrepancy can not be attributed to a "Greenhouse Effect".
7. Since the temp discrepancy on the Moon can not be attributed to a Greenhouse Effect, the discrepancy must be due to other reason(s)
8. The entire temp discrepancy on Earth is due to the Greenhouse Effect.
9. The temp discrepancy on the Moon is due to reason(s) other than a Greenhouse effect.
10. Therefor, there are no overlapping ( common) reason for the temp discrepancy that is found on the Earth as well as the Moon.

IOW, the Moons temp can be warmer than expected without a Greenhouse Effect, but somehow, the Earth can only be warmer than expected due to a
Greenhouse Effect.
Edit: NASA found that the day time temps on the moon were on average 20 C cooler than expected. The night time temps were on average 60C warmer than expected. For a 40C average warmer than expected temp on the moon.

"Observational friction" the energy released along with gravity as Dark Matter is converted to Cosmic Matter by living organisms making "Heisenberg observations."

This is already accounted for in the terrestrial baselines we use on earth. Physics doesn't account for it though so they have a skewd base line on foreign bodies.
 
"Observational friction" the energy released along with gravity as Dark Matter is converted to Cosmic Matter by living organisms making "Heisenberg observations."

This is already accounted for in the terrestrial baselines we use on earth. Physics doesn't account for it though so they have a skewd base line on foreign bodies.

I'm not always convinced that you are right but you are certainly the most interesting person in the SZ.
 
I'm not always convinced that you are right but you are certainly the most interesting person in the SZ.

The best line Sagan wrote into Contact was where she goes aboard Hadden's jet where he reveals the 3D primmer for the message. "A more intelligent being will think on multiple levels of efficiency." Nothing in nature serves one and only one function. Everything effects everything else and on multiple levels, and these interactions work cooperatively to provide a product the sum do which is greater than the parts. That is why we are so wasteful, we only use 1/3 of most resources. When you start thinking like that, then things become easy, although less profitable for those seeking to concentrate wealth.
 
In twenty years we will either have made the evolutionary step in social consciousness that is required of us by God and started acting on that, or in the midst of our extinction volley if we launch nukes, or fall to the next Dark Ages if we don't. The choices are ours, and I don't see us making the right choices, the only real question is which will we choose, Dark Ages or total destruction.

Evolution requires much longer time periods, doesn't it?

I stand by my prediction. We have a multitude of other things that stand to harm humanity way more than the any slight affect on climate. The vast majority of humans recognize this as surveys of leading concerns bears out.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/w....&region=Footer&module=TopNews&pgtype=article

UN climate conf done.

China resolves to do: absolutely nothing but talk, and pollute. India promises to look at possibly starting to reduce the rate of increase of pollution and greenhouse gas production. Note; They do NOT promise to reduce anything, or even reduce the increases, but they promise that they'll talk about it - sometime in the future - maybe.

What crap. Way to go UN, you really got something done there! (not)

China statement: “The success of this has laid a good foundation for success of Paris,” said Xie Zhenhua, China’s vice minister of National Development and Reform Commission. “Next year all of us, all countries, will continue to demonstrate our ambition, flexibility and confidence,” he said.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: My BS detector is flashing red and going whooop! whooop! whooop!
What do you mean they didn't get anything done? All of these treaties are nothing more than wealth-transfer devices, and they work quite well. Many industries have fled the developed countries because of over regulation, including environmental regulation. It isn't a coincidence.
 
Evolution requires much longer time periods, doesn't it?

I stand by my prediction. We have a multitude of other things that stand to harm humanity way more than the any slight affect on climate. The vast majority of humans recognize this as surveys of leading concerns bears out.
Even the environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg argued that there are better ways to use resources to improve conditions.

In 2002, Lomborg and the Environmental Assessment Institute founded the Copenhagen Consensus, a project-based conference where prominent economists sought to establish priorities for advancing global welfare using methods based on the theory of welfare economics.

Lomborg campaigned against the Kyoto Protocol and other measures to cut carbon emissions in the short-term, and argued for adaptation to short-term temperature rises as they are inevitable, and for spending money on research and development for longer-term environmental solutions, and on other important world problems such as AIDS, malaria and malnutrition. In his critique of the 2012 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Lomborg stated: "Global warming is by no means our main environmental threat."[1]

In the chapter on climate change in The Skeptical Environmentalist, he states: "This chapter accepts the reality of man-made global warming but questions the way in which future scenarios have been arrived at and finds that forecasts of climate change of 6 degrees by the end of the century are not plausible".[2] Cost–benefit analyses, calculated by the Copenhagen Consensus, ranked climate mitigation initiatives lowest on a list of international development initiatives when first done in 2004.[3] In a 2010 interview with the New Statesman, Lomborg summarized his position on climate change: "Global warming is real – it is man-made and it is an important problem. But it is not the end of the world."[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjørn_Lomborg

http://www.amazon.com/The-Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State/dp/0521010683
 
"Observational friction" the energy released along with gravity as Dark Matter is converted to Cosmic Matter by living organisms making "Heisenberg observations."

This is already accounted for in the terrestrial baselines we use on earth. Physics doesn't account for it though so they have a skewd base line on foreign bodies.

That could be a reason , there could be other reasons we don't know yet. Same with the temp on Earth. My real problem with all this, are the huge assumptions, taken as gospel built into the reasoning.

There is no equation right now that could possibly compute the mean temperature of the Earth. The equation doesn't even take a stab at the known variables no less the unknown variables.

But when they use the equation, they say WOW, the Earth should be a lot colder, must be due to a Greenhouse effect. The equation is way off for the moon, a rather simple body compared to the Earth.

Are just suppose to be idiots and accept these huge assumptions that have no basis in reality?
 
What do you mean they didn't get anything done? All of these treaties are nothing more than wealth-transfer devices, and they work quite well. Many industries have fled the developed countries because of over regulation, including environmental regulation. It isn't a coincidence.

If the developed world prevents the undeveloped world from using cheap energy, they will need a wealth transfer. No way they can raise their standard of living without cheap energy.
 
Evolution requires much longer time periods, doesn't it?

I stand by my prediction. We have a multitude of other things that stand to harm humanity way more than the any slight affect on climate. The vast majority of humans recognize this as surveys of leading concerns bears out.

No, evolution happens quickly once the information is introduced. We have had 6000 years to evolve into a compassionate, cooperative species, actually much longer, ever since Homo Sapiens either killed off or assimilated all the other parallel developing hominids for the Apex species spot on the planet. However we didn't, we are competing for top human as well. That in and of itself is not a problem, however we compete for wealth as the determinant of whose life has the most value.

It's not what one does that determines the moralistic value, it's how and why that serve that function. We are not that far from making it, there are only a handful of greedy people who are destroying our destiny. Why we follow them I haven't a clue.
 
No, evolution happens quickly once the information is introduced. We have had 6000 years to evolve into a compassionate, cooperative species, actually much longer, ever since Homo Sapiens either killed off or assimilated all the other parallel developing hominids for the Apex species spot on the planet. However we didn't, we are competing for top human as well. That in and of itself is not a problem, however we compete for wealth as the determinant of whose life has the most value.

It's not what one does that determines the moralistic value, it's how and why that serve that function. We are not that far from making it, there are only a handful of greedy people who are destroying our destiny. Why we follow them I haven't a clue.

If you are going to have bad guys, pick the right target. This whole CO2 controversy is starting to drag the entire scientific community into disrepute because many of them have abandoned scientific principle for politics.
 
If the developed world prevents the undeveloped world from using cheap energy, they will need a wealth transfer. No way they can raise their standard of living without cheap energy.

Yeah? Well I think I need a bigger plane. I also need a cabin in Tahiti. While we're at it, I need a new Lamborghini.

Need <> want. We aren't preventing any country from becoming developed. In fact, one could say the US is the model that other countries can use if they want prosperity and advancement.
 
That could be a reason , there could be other reasons we don't know yet. Same with the temp on Earth. My real problem with all this, are the huge assumptions, taken as gospel built into the reasoning.

There is no equation right now that could possibly compute the mean temperature of the Earth. The equation doesn't even take a stab at the known variables no less the unknown variables.

But when they use the equation, they say WOW, the Earth should be a lot colder, must be due to a Greenhouse effect. The equation is way off for the moon, a rather simple body compared to the Earth.

Are just suppose to be idiots and accept these huge assumptions that have no basis in reality?

If science and academia would quit taking it as a personal mission to disprove God and just for once look at everything that the scientific method of observation and experimentation have brought us and apply it to a model with a central intelligence that thinks much like we do (God is a singularity of information and energy, the only "image of God" man can reflect is in our thought process.). When you consider an intelligence at the core of all we perceive, then you can find the missing pieces in physics at both the quantum and relativistic levels as wel as fill in the holes in evolutionary theory. Darwin got the biological mechanisms correct, but he considered evolution as reactive rather than pro active, pro active requires intelligence and forethought.

The greatest proof that there is an intelligence that guides everything is inspiration, original thought thought. Where do new ideas come from? Where do artists get their vision, their sense? We even call them "God given talents." among those who don't believe in God because there is no other explanation for them to exist. There is no survival need to art, but it is the optimum solution to many different needs of social growth and to teach compassion.
 
Yeah? Well I think I need a bigger plane. I also need a cabin in Tahiti. While we're at it, I need a new Lamborghini.

Need <> want. We aren't preventing any country from becoming developed. In fact, one could say the US is the model that other countries can use if they want prosperity and advancement.

You do, the question is, do you need sole utilization? That is the big problem with most high end luxury stuff it concentrates and uses up a hell of a lot of resources with single digit rates of utilization, sitting idle for most of the time.

The yachting industry is a great example of how we only get a fraction of the value from the resources spent. Yachts redistribute wealth quite effectively, they are expensive to own, operate, and maintain. I have years where if you took all the social services money spent divided it by all the social services employs, per capita I bet my budget is higher. There are years I spend over $10MM of other people's money, and these people will use the boats a few weeks a year.

If it was done under a communal finance model, when you borrow the money, the interest you pay is the unused time on the yacht. This benefits the owner besides just finance cost as well, because the yacht maintenance division also has a stable branch set up to maximize the efficiency of the maintenance with capabilities and leverage only available with large scale accounts.

Professor Nash was 100% correct. If everyone cooperates to see that everyone is taken care of, the end result will be better for everyone, even the person who would be the winner in the competitive model.
 
Last edited:
Yeah? Well I think I need a bigger plane. I also need a cabin in Tahiti. While we're at it, I need a new Lamborghini.

Need <> want. We aren't preventing any country from becoming developed. In fact, one could say the US is the model that other countries can use if they want prosperity and advancement.

Much of the underdeveloped world is ruled by governments only interested in their own well being. Bribe them , you can get whatever you want.

We managed to ban DDT because it offended us. Deaths from malaria went from 50,000 per year to one million per year.
 
No. Evolution is a continuum.

Yep, it's break through after break through after breakthrough ad infinitum. Time traves through the field of protomatter we know as Space and Dark Matter, propelling our information forward at the speed of light in an ever changing pattern of information excited neutrinos to be come what we perceive. Like a hologram of mass induced by information and energy.

Life and Light are the same thing in 2 different function specs. Photons are both light particle and wave, as Life is information particle and wave.

This is why SETI doesn't find anything, any intelligence that developes to full production gets introduced to the Life Spectrum as well. Until then though, we can't be allowed to pollute it. On the Life Spectrum Trans Universal instant transportation of your information across the universe becomes possible. These are the "Strings" of string theory, "worm holes" of life, conduit for for the thought and energy we produce and our feedback link from the singularity we access during Deep Sleep Dream state.

Once you learn to access it, it becomes simpler to build a bigger picture with time. It's very confusing to learn to see a place in time though. We are not nearly to that point of evolution yet, in fact, we aren't fully born yet, we are still in process, and may not make it. The problem with what you can see is not only figuring out when you are seeing it, but what fold of the multiverse you are looking at, and we are not the only ones making observations, although our existence doesn't notice the differences their observations make.

After a couple decades working at it though, you can start making sense, at least it makes it easier to track inside your own timeline. Once you release your own time line though, things become trickier. If you look down the tunnel from the future, you only see what the inertia of the future information is. Information like light has mass and inertia, it's our product we produce and export onto the Life Wide Web along with the energy we add in. Why do you suppose we came to technologically develope the Internet similar to the way a neural net is designed which in a visual model is fairly represented in the current 3D model of the Universe with excited amounts of protomatter along strings through space, feeding the information and energy back to the time/carrier wave back to the singularity.

What we are failing to comprehend even though God has tried to inform us through first preprogramming, then when we failed that, Religion; then when we failed that, Science, so we would understand that we are all, and everything we perceive, part of one larger organism that we are not fully developed to completely understand. We seem to be failing Science as well. :sigh:

We have the bits and pieces, but we are still some software and firmware upgrades away. Hopefully hardware too, our spines are not meant to be upright, they haven't fully evolved to the posture.

Until we come to that realization and have faith that if we just follow the guidance of our conscience, our direct 24/7 link with God, we will reach our intended destiny, both individually, and if we do it cooperatively and compassionately, as a species. If we cooperate on a humanity wide scale to 80% efficiency, we get the only graduating ring that matters. We get people who continue to make the Heisenberg observations of our timeline. When that fails to happen, what we produced in this time line will cease to exist from your consciousness.

We are the first species that had full production unit capability in brain function, as sensory organs for the singularity. Bad energy and bad information flow directly through God from all sentient creatures. What sets intelligent creatures apart is the ability to produce bad energy and information. A lower animal only attacks out of fear (defense of young included) or hunger; only higher primates and cetatians will attack out of anger, only humans act out of greed.
 
Last edited:
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an expert in the field. There is a lot about the details that I'm not sure of, such as which mode of heat transfer dominates in transporting the trapped outgoing IR back to the surface. I had thought it was mostly convective, but I believe now that it is mostly by radiation, just not radiation directly from GHGs.

I'm still learning this subject - go to the experts if you want a definitive answer on the inner workings of the Greenhouse effect.

(I think you've already made up your mind that it doesn't exist, though, which is unfortunate since it means you aren't going to learn anything about it.)

But you are part of the "Scientific Consensus " that is telling us we all going to die. Yet you don't understand how this thing works. You don't understand it because they have made it so complicated in an effort to explain the flaws, and why a simple experiment just can't be right. First thing you need to do is explain why the two Greenhouses were the same temperature. If you can't get past that, no need to go any further with the theory.You trust the experts, because their motives are pure. We've seen how that works with this subject.
 
But you are part of the "Scientific Consensus " that is telling us we all going to die. Yet you don't understand how this thing works. You don't understand it because they have made it so complicated in an effort to explain the flaws, and why a simple experiment just can't be right. First thing you need to do is explain why the two Greenhouses were the same temperature. If you can't get past that, no need to go any further with the theory.You trust the experts, because their motives are pure. We've seen how that works with this subject.

We are all going to die from our perspective regardless. There is a difference between dying and being extinct. Everything you have ever thought in this lifetime is stored in the server of the universal consciousness, every thought a logged keystroke. As long as there is someone still in your timeline that has your information through thought or genetics, that data will remain stored, when that ends, all the information you produced during that time is lost, that is extinct. You still do another lifetime of service as something/sometime else depending on your developmental needs as an information producing organism, a planner, a designer. A producer of more production information packs to be released at consequent Big Bangs. Buddhists refer to it as achieving Nirvana. You no longer exist as a production unit, you graduate to management, this comes with travel perks you can't imagine.

If you are a real broken unit though, you'll bounce off the time wave into eternity.
 
Last edited:
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an expert in the field. There is a lot about the details that I'm not sure of, such as which mode of heat transfer dominates in transporting the trapped outgoing IR back to the surface. I had thought it was mostly convective, but I believe now that it is mostly by radiation, just not radiation directly from GHGs.

I'm still learning this subject - go to the experts if you want a definitive answer on the inner workings of the Greenhouse effect.

(I think you've already made up your mind that it doesn't exist, though, which is unfortunate since it means you aren't going to learn anything about it.)

Is it wrong of me not to believe in something for which there is no empiirical evidence or experimentation to prove it's existence? I suppose if I didn't believe in God I could still study the bible and learn something.

Please don't tell me I'm confusing a real Greenhouse with the Earths' greenhouse. I'm not. If one Greenhouse is absorbing and re emmiting radition (just like CO2) and one is not absorbing any infared and lets it all escape,there should be a difference in temp from the so called feedback. There should be a very pronounced difference. CO2 is measured in ppm, in proportion, the glass roof is absorbing much more than CO2 would in the atmosphere.
 
Let me state it another way. The equation assumes the Earth behaves like a fictional 2 dimensional black body. A black body radiates out 100 % of radiation received in . It stores nothing.

The equation says the Earth's mean temp should be -18F, but the actual mean temp of the Earth is 59F. Supposedly, the reason we are at 59F and not -18F is due entirely to the Greenhouse Effect. The moon has no atmosphere, and so no Greenhouse effect. The discrepancy in temps of the calculated black body temp and actual temp of the moon is due to surface properties of the moon that retain heat and release it later. Do you suppose that some of the discrepancy between -18F and 59F on Earth is due to surface properties of the Earth and not entirely to the Greenhouse Effect?
I was thinking about this while proctoring my exam and it suddenly hit me that you might be asking whether the mass of the Earth can hold enough heat absorbed from the Sun to raise its surface temperature above the theoretical blackbody temperature like the greenhouse effect does - is that it? That's a reasonable question but the answer is no - because all that mass can do is slow the temperature change as heat is absorbed or radiated away. It can't block outgoing radiation like GHGs do. If you started from absolute zero and started exposing this toy moon to day/night cycles it would, if its heat capacity was large enough, absorb more heat than it radiates away - for a while, until a steady state was reached. In that steady state the average energy stored by the "moon" would be constant and it would radiate away exactly the same amount of energy, averaged over each day/night cycle, as a blackbody with zero heat capacity.

Sorry, I realize that I've been impatient and brusque with you in a way that I would never be with one of my students that I interact with in person. That was wrong of me. You don't have the background to recognize that papers like that Moon paper are completely off base. They seem to talk the language, and the conceptual errors they make are errors that even students with some science background often make, so no one should expect a lay person to be able to spot them.
 
We are all going to die from our perspective regardless. There is a difference between dying and being extinct. Everything you have ever thought in this lifetime is stored in the server of the universal consciousness, every thought a logged keystroke. As long as there is someone still in your timeline that has your information through thought or genetics, that data will remain stored, when that ends, all the information you produced during that time is lost, that is extinct. You still do another lifetime of service as something/sometime else depending on your developmental needs as an information producing organism, a planner, a designer. A producer of more production information packs to be released at consequent Big Bangs. Buddhists refer to it as achieving Nirvana. You no longer exist as a production unit, you graduate to management, this comes with travel perks you can't imagine.

If you are a real broken unit though, you'll bounce off the time wave into eternity.

Everything you say may be true. I should probably spend more time contemplating those things rather than this crap., But it is still in my DNA to react if someone tries to stick a knife in my back.
 
I like global warming, it's 49 degrees here today, no snow, no rain, no problems.

warmest December on record, I'm good with it.
 
Everything you say may be true. I should probably spend more time contemplating those things rather than this crap., But it is still in my DNA to react if someone tries to stick a knife in my back.

And that is what you have to chose to alter. First is your perception of who is sticking you in the back. Since obviously we are not talking literal interpretation here, let's define the metaphor given the two adversarial positions in the politicized argument. You have on the one hand, those whom you fear will create a change they are claiming is necessary for survival that will cost you money. You have on the other hand those that you are giving all your money to saying "no no, it's all lies", keep giving us all your money regardless what is happening, we know what is best, we are your leaders."

Of those two parties, given the light of our market place's history, I would more likely suspect the latter of the deeper wound. However I do see some marks where science got a couple cuts in, and that is their failure to do their assigned task of getting people to understand the nature of God and the universe and get them into a cooperative production mode. That is much our own fault though because we choose to follow the greedy.

Yes, you should spend more time thinking about these things, in fact, it's your primary job; it's why you exist. That is what both religion and science were meant to teach you, but failed at, miserably.
 
But you are part of the "Scientific Consensus " that is telling us we all going to die. Yet you don't understand how this thing works. You don't understand it because they have made it so complicated in an effort to explain the flaws, and why a simple experiment just can't be right. First thing you need to do is explain why the two Greenhouses were the same temperature. If you can't get past that, no need to go any further with the theory.You trust the experts, because their motives are pure. We've seen how that works with this subject.
I trust that the process works to weed out blatant fraud. It *usually* works to weed out elementary mistakes. I don't trust that the models are sophisticated enough to reliably predict what our climate will be like decades from now - I suspect we don't know enough about the feedbacks to be sure of much. But I'm not in a position to do original work to help answer those questions, either.

As to the two greenhouses: I assume you're talking about Nahle's experiment and not Wood's, because I don't think we have a detailed enough description of Wood's setup to know why. In Nahle's case, there are two possibilities: either the amount that would be radiated away is negligibly small compared to the amount that would be convected or conducted away, or it's because he gave the box with the IR transparent front an extra layer of insulation. I haven't tried to compare the different modes of heat transfer because I don't have the time (or the interest, really) to look up the numbers and do the calculation. But from his fifth experiment, where he shows that the glass wool makes a big difference, my guess is it's the second explanation. IOW, the IR-opaque boxes were losing heat through conduction through the cardboard and then convective exchange with the air outside at about the same rate as the box with the polyethylene front was losing it via radiation through the sheet. I agree with you that if radiative loss is comparable to other losses, then a properly designed experiment should show a difference between the two greenhouses.

BTW I'm not telling you we're all going to die because of climate change. I think more likely we'll manage until fossil fuels become so scarce that we can't afford to sustain our way of life. That's when we'll have massive famine and die-offs from hunger, exposure, resistant strains of disease. At this point, our only option that will make enough of a difference is nuclear power and we don't have the political will to find a way to build safe and efficient reactors. Even the available fissile fuel is limited, but there are ways to make it last longer. Maybe even long enough to solve the fusion problem.
 
And that is what you have to chose to alter. First is your perception of who is sticking you in the back. Since obviously we are not talking literal interpretation here, let's define the metaphor given the two adversarial positions in the politicized argument. You have on the one hand, those whom you fear will create a change they are claiming is necessary for survival that will cost you money. You have on the other hand those that you are giving all your money to saying "no no, it's all lies", keep giving us all your money regardless what is happening, we know what is best, we are your leaders."

Of those two parties, given the light of our market place's history, I would more likely suspect the latter of the deeper wound. However I do see some marks where science got a couple cuts in, and that is their failure to do their assigned task of getting people to understand the nature of God and the universe and get them into a cooperative production mode. That is much our own fault though because we choose to follow the greedy.

Yes, you should spend more time thinking about these things, in fact, it's your primary job; it's why you exist. That is what both religion and science were meant to teach you, but failed at, miserably.

It is not about money or greed with me. I know we all have to sacrifice and compromise to live together collectively. And it sure would be nice if there was some meaning to all this.

I was all with the program until I discovered we had been lied to.
 
It is not about money or greed with me. I know we all have to sacrifice and compromise to live together collectively. And it sure would be nice if there was some meaning to all this.

I was all with the program until I discovered we had been lied to.

It doesn't matter. The deceptions are multi fold and irrelevant from the meaning of the information. The meaning of the information is that we need to hurry our asses up and get off the planet or go extinct. One way or another it is going to happen, God has it covered from many angles not to mention the cosmic wildcards with lottery level odds.
 
It doesn't matter. The deceptions are multi fold and irrelevant from the meaning of the information. The meaning of the information is that we need to hurry our asses up and get off the planet or go extinct. One way or another it is going to happen, God has it covered from many angles not to mention the cosmic wildcards with lottery level odds.

Why are we going extinct again?
 
Why are we going extinct again?

Because we are not producing sufficient quality thought and energy. We are failing to evolve into a fully productive species, and God needs his planet back to reseed in something new that has a better chance.
 
I trust that the process works to weed out blatant fraud. It *usually* works to weed out elementary mistakes. I don't trust that the models are sophisticated enough to reliably predict what our climate will be like decades from now - I suspect we don't know enough about the feedbacks to be sure of much. But I'm not in a position to do original work to help answer those questions, either.

As to the two greenhouses: I assume you're talking about Nahle's experiment and not Wood's, because I don't think we have a detailed enough description of Wood's setup to know why. In Nahle's case, there are two possibilities: either the amount that would be radiated away is negligibly small compared to the amount that would be convected or conducted away, or it's because he gave the box with the IR transparent front an extra layer of insulation. I haven't tried to compare the different modes of heat transfer because I don't have the time (or the interest, really) to look up the numbers and do the calculation. But from his fifth experiment, where he shows that the glass wool makes a big difference, my guess is it's the second explanation. IOW, the IR-opaque boxes were losing heat through conduction through the cardboard and then convective exchange with the air outside at about the same rate as the box with the polyethylene front was losing it via radiation through the sheet. I agree with you that if radiative loss is comparable to other losses, then a properly designed experiment should show a difference between the two greenhouses.

BTW I'm not telling you we're all going to die because of climate change. I think more likely we'll manage until fossil fuels become so scarce that we can't afford to sustain our way of life. That's when we'll have massive famine and die-offs from hunger, exposure, resistant strains of disease. At this point, our only option that will make enough of a difference is nuclear power and we don't have the political will to find a way to build safe and efficient reactors. Even the available fissile fuel is limited, but there are ways to make it last longer. Maybe even long enough to solve the fusion problem.

You trust the process, many of us don't, and we ample documented evidence of why we don't.

This is not just a debate among scientists. This is a matter of public policy. So the public will be the finder of fact just like a jury. If one party lies and deceives, avoids public debate, and continues to cry wolf, guess which side will prevail.

At least you have conceded the Greenhouse experiments have some relevance.

I'm not that pessimistic about the future. Probably looks better now looking at our prospects for the future than from the perspective of someone in 1939.
 
Back
Top