Infrared back radiation is an energy accounting artifact used to confuse people. Net infrared radiation is the term of interest.
For those who want to learn the details of the earth’s energy budget I highly recommend this source:
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/chapter05_06.htm
One needs to understand every jot of information in the figures above and why they are the way they are before presuming to be able to speak with any authority on the subject.
“Form”
Water cycle is part of the whole and parallel to circulation. Both are diven by the input of free energy that requires string GHE.
Samo samo. Peddlers of pseudo-scientific conjecture with delusions of infallibility are all alike. It would be really nice if you’d go to a blog where your own kind congregate and leave this one alone. I realize that those blogs aren’t very popular but that doesn’t make it fair that you ride on the coat tails of popular blogs where your brand of disinformation and ignorance isn’t welcome.
Evaporation driven by sunlight is easily proven to not require greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. To say otherwise is a blunder not even a child should make. Go away.
Oh no, a journey plumber who who decides to teach school is still a plumber because he still has the qualifications to be employed as a plumber, unless he gets to old to get up after squatting or bending over or forgets what he knew about plumbing.
Centrifugal force does not generate relativistic effects. This was proven in toroidal particle accelerators generating a trillion times the force obtained in an ultra-centrifuge. Muon decay rate is 2.97 microseconds under 1 gravity and 2.97 microseconds under 10^17 artificial gravities. The only thing that changed the decay, predictably with high precision, is the relative velocity of the muon.
Rud Istvan | December 10, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
” Santer’s paper said 17 years of ‘pause’ (no statistically significantwarming) would falsify climate models.”
A quote would be nice.
Input of free energy is not possible without circulation that brings heat from a warm heated location to a colder location from where energy is emitted to space. Without that heating and evaporation gets gradually weaker and weaker, when the atmosphere warms and gets more moist.
Including evaporation does not change the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.
Fan
We have had this discussion about borehole several times and as a result i had several email discussions with the author.they confirm a global warming trend since 1600 closely following cet.The warming trend is not a recent one. We can also observe it warming through the 1300 to 1380 period and again in the first half of the 16th century. Prior to that we had a strong warming commencing in the ninth century
Tonyb
Bill Clinton once called Carbon Dioxide “Plant Food”, but only once. I suspect he couldn’t restrain himself from a little dig at Gore. This was years ago, and I’m still waiting for him to say it again.
Heh, he could speak power to truth.
==========
Rud Istvan,
Since C&W released their data and code if there is a problem with it that must be knowable. If it is wrong, I would assume there was either mistakes made or some inherent problem with the method as releasing code and data would indicate they didn’t cheat.
I’m guessing that the reason it runs hot is that they did use the arctic surface that was available and the arctic was still running hot. In fact it was running hotter as demonstrated by two big ice melt years and less sea ice extent in general. There is also a slight upward trend in Hadcrut from 1998.
The sort of thing that might happen in Phu King, China?
The fragility is in the vagaries of the winds, and more; oh, Maria.
===========
But you can see that C&W succeeded in having 2010 hotter than 2005 hotter than 1998. So watch out for 2015.
Well, it’s easy to spin decades if you lop off a few years here and there and just use the 10-year periods you like. Also, you can choose periods too short to be statistically significant, and imply putting them together doesn’t give statistical significance either.
On a Typepad blog we call it Typhus.
============================
R Gate says, “Adding GH gases will add net energy to the system. This is basic physics.”
Am I the only one that finds this egregiously stupid to the point of being anti-science? I’m not saying I’m right but that it just seems to me to be beyond the pale of reasoning to take experiments in a lab and then make a wholesale ‘assumption’ that what you found in the lab works exactly the same way in the atmosphere where the number of variables that might interact to change things is enormous.
If I’m wrong then I’d appreciate someone telling me why laboratory experiments on CO2 are invariant over atmospheric conditions.
Thanks.
Greenhouse operators give their plants lots of CO2, because it’s plant food, and all the water the plants want. Greenhouse operators also heat and air-condition their greenhouses because plants don’t think cooler or warmer is better. Plants prefer Goldie Locks conditions, everything just right.
Everyone knows too much human food is not good for a humans. What happens when plants get too much CO2 food? I don’t know. What happens when plants get too warm or too cold? They get sick and die.
Daniel,
Two things I don’t understand: “R Gate says, “Adding GH gases will add net energy to the system. This is basic physics.”
Now I’m not even close to a scientist but wouldn’t adding GH gases add zero energy, but may change how energy acts?
And 2nd, we know NOT (fully) how the system responds to changes in energy but can observe the results.
Keep in mind I’m a false scientist if you respond so some of the words will be harder for me.
