@joe035 Met office and UofEA!! Well that settles it, debate over. Thanks for your posts, before reading them I thought CO2 was a waste product that was bad. I guess Venus having all that CO2 in the atmosphere and being the hottest planet is mere coincidence.
@atheistcommonsense CO2 is the life gas of the planet, optimal for plant life is well over double the atmosphere’s current level. Forests have CO2 at 600-800 ppm. It is not a waste gas, you have been indoctrinated by a political movement, not a scientific one.
"Another Mole" what a codescending asshole. Why do you think all these "moles" are attacking your political power grab potholer? Cause it is just that. You are obviously funded by the elite trying to force this CO2 tax on the world, you suck.
@prebirth91 Funding for Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and too many others to mention, comes from the Rockefeller family, George Soros, Maurice Strong, and again too many to mention on here. These “elite” want the population of the world cut in half at a minimum, right or wrong thats what they have stated they want. CO2 tax is a step toward having that control over life and death. Wake up and smell the coffee, support of this tax is born from ignorance of the scientific facts, and follower mentality.
@greensense99 And lets not forget that 9/11 was an inside job and Kennedy was killed by the sniper in the grassy noel, and we never landed on the moon.
Oh and don't forget your medication. You have a mental problem that you will need to take medication for you know that?
This video does not “put into perspective" as advertised what Svensmark’s work DOES PROVE, that the Sun does vary how many cosmic rays hit the Earth, and do control cloud cover. If you look at all of the science the work presented is clear and concise. More questions need answered sure, they were born by the work at Cern, and by Henrik Svensmark.
Acknowledgement by the UK’s Met Office and the University of East Anglia that not only is the Earth NOT warming, the oven is off and the pilot light is out. Moreover, data collected from more than 30,000 measuring stations and released last week have put the deep freeze on global warming! Global Warming is a hoax perpetrated by liberal politicians wanting to take more control & power over those they say they only want to represent!
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
@Jap3tus My money is on our only source of heat (the sun), and ya, cosmic rays as they have some control on our cloud cover. The zodiac, is a map of our travel through the milky way, this is what causes our ice ages. CO2 has to cause warming by its nature, the amount is what is in debate. As well as how large man’s contribution is, compared to natural causes of CO2 increases. CO2 does not control our climate.
@greensense99 don't forget methane from factory farms, that is a much worse contributor than co2, although nobody talks about it, because no body wants to threaten their food source. funny how conflicts interfere with what is true.
@SuperAnimalDrummer on a molecule-for-molecule basis the direct radiative effects of methane is about 72 times stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over a 20 year time frame, but it is present in much smaller concentrations so that its total direct radiative effect is smaller. On the other hand, in addition to its direct radiative impact methane has a large indirect radiative effect because it contributes to ozone formation.
@greensense99 The CO2 in the atmosphere is what regulates how much of the Sun's heat is trapped and how much escapes. when the Industrial Revolution happened and Humans started producing mass amounts of CO2 we see in the Ice Layers that or current CO2 is way higher than Nature has been able to get on it's own. The Misinformation campaign against Global Warming has confused people, but their is no debate anymore, higher CO2 causes higher Global Temp. It's been proven Over and over.
@BorikeTheBlackDragon Acknowledgement by the UK’s Met Office and the University of East Anglia that not only is the Earth NOT warming, the oven is off and the pilot light is out. Moreover, data collected from more than 30,000 measuring stations and released last week have put the deep freeze on global warming! NASA & the USAF has confirmed we are heading towards a mini iceage. Don't you find it fascinating how global warming has been rebranded climate change by our media & elected elite??
@greensense99 Of course Other factors can Control Global Temperature but only CO2 can work on the Time scale we see, Increase in Solar output would be gradual Warming over Millions of years not a sudden spike in recent decades.
@BorikeTheBlackDragon First of all spelling is an indicator of your level of education. Secondly, you are stating untruths. If you check on your own, you will find there has not been any warming at anytime, that is at a rate not recorded before. Even with the CO2 increase. Also you will find, (if you look) that CO2 has never controlled Earth’s temperature. As natural warming has occurred, CO2 has increased, following warming by a few hundred years. You are a follower, not a scholar.
@greensense99 We need to start pumping a shit more carbon into the atmosphere, Nasa says were heading towards a mini iceage these global warming advocates should be last in line if the worlds food supply comes up short.
@joe035 I think that may be a ways off, but yes our descendants will one day have to move south to the equator to survive. There used to be a MILE of ice where my house sits, can’t imagine living here then.
To make a mockery out of bloggers that does not fully understand the science, does not dismiss the science. Svensmarks theory is strengthened, whether you like it or not.
It is correct that this does not fully confirm Henrik Svensmarks theory. Svensmarks theory however, IS STRENGTHENED by the findings at CERN, because the experiments have been conducted in the best cloud chamber in the world. Svensmarks theory has a massive amount of empirical data confirming it, from the global geological temperature record. It has been partially confirmed in experiments in Denmark and the US, and now CERN is picking up the glove.
CERN confirmes that cosmic rays can attribute to cloud cover in the troposphere. These clouds are very important for surface temperature. CERN stated that the previous theory, where low cloud cover could not be explained, since sulpuric acid molecules don't attach readily in this part of the athmosphere. They found that increase in cosmic rays could give such an effect by adding N-ions to the sulphuric acid structures, thus making them more stable. NO DOUBT AT ALL that this finding IS important.
No, but chemtrails are! Wake up people. Look, listen and learn. Sometimes common sense is more fact, then the so called science the disinformation agents want you to believe!
@marketsdata "Wake up"? Implying that people who have no scientific understanding of the formation of contrails are "awake" and those who do are "asleep"? That sounds very convincing.
@eggroll9000 fuck off troll, I didn't even comment on this vid. You dumb-ass. And yes people that are awake know about the Aerosols that are sprayed daily.
Why don't you open your channel up you fake, phony, fraud!
@marketsdata Lol whut? I replied to your comment right here. I'm slightly concerned about your sanity... For more than one reason.
I'll give you a hint: It's not called "being awake", it's called having a psychosis. Can be caused by recreational drug use. I'd suggest you go see a doctor.
@eggroll9000 FKN troll, This channel not available. why did you avoid the question regarding your channel? Again I never commented on this vid. So you have experience with recreational drug use what "CRaCk" you butt wipe! get off my ass you fake phony fraud
congratulations! you do an enormous amount of good work! I'd go ballistic or murderous after debunking only one of these blogs as completely as you do all of them. a pity, that children these days don't get any education in chemistry anymore or there would be way less trolling here...
@grendelee Yes tell that to the IPCC and gravy train so called Climatologists. They seem to think that the Sun acts like a constant "light bulb" they have not seen the light yet as you obviously have.
@grendelee Actually I was making fun of you too. The climate is a chaotic system and a trace gas which is heavier than air, tending to hug the ground where plants absorb it by the process of photosynthesis( to be specific the calvn cycle) producing the basis of the planet's food chains. Heat releases co2 from the Oceans and biosphere , therefore past highly active periods of the Sun warmed the planet releasing co2. Man is insignificant. You and your ilk are producers of lies and propagnda.
@david222444 you just lied and say im lying? C02 doesnt hug the ground, the it mixes with the air, otherwise it couldnt be absorbed by the trees and it would kill us. The air mixes all the gases together by heat and wind, otherwise would just be breathing layers.
To explain my metaphor better, an architect would say "this building fell down because something destroyed these support beams right here" and you would say "You LIAR! The building fell down because of GRAVITY! Its blindly obvious!"
Cern's results are actually very important. The results show that there are extraterrestrial forces on climate, and Dr. Kirkby said himself, that they should be included in all climate models.
I am not talking about the possibility of doubling the radiation to the planet due to back-radiation or the saucepan in a closed-system which seems absurd. My argument is relatively straightforward and in agreement with physics. Greenhouses gases remit radiation omnidirectionally and some of that radiation will be re-radiated back down to the planet where it will be absorbed because the radiation will be black at all wavelengths. All electromagnetic radiation possesses energy, to some degree.
Therefore heating will occur however immeasurably small it may be. The situation would be quite different if we were dealing with an isolated-system and there was no constant fresh supply of new energy because the total amount of energy within the system would remain constant. So, in conclusion, I agree that doubling the back-radiation is absurd, although that is not what I am defending. I am defending the concept of the greenhouse theory only. I hope this goes some way to uncrossing our wires.
"You are still confusing an isolated-system with a closed-system"
No. I realize the stove is inputting energy to the water via saucepan, I realize as the water gains energy the water loses energy as vapor and LW radiation, I realize the lid acts to slow energy loss, I realize because this process exchanges both energy and mater it is an open system.
Make the saucepan and lid glass(transparent to LW) will same processes be observed?
If you insulate the side and lid of the saucepan, fix the input at 50C, will the water boil? If the principles behind GHG physics are valid, the reflected LW will effectively double the energy input, thus the water boils.
You asked: "Where does the energy ... if not into warming the water in the saucepan" The low energy LW absorbed by the water does not result in further heating. At best, it can confer to it's source a temperature by which it was radiated.
I just deleted my last comment, because I think I got the answer to my question. I have read different places that we had a longer than normal solar minimum, and in the past year or so the sun has been making up for it will increased solar wind. This could explain all the drastic weather changes if this is the case, correct? So, wouldn't this also affect the temperatures? I'm off to research more, because I seem to be confused yet again.
@CHIPSTERO7 " ....saucepan heating water at 150C....saucepan and the saucepan's temperature increases accordingly."
The saucepan increase to 150C maximum. Of course, if the lid acts to increase pressure (inhibits escape of water vapor) temperature will exceed 150C. A lid transparent to LW will yield the same results.
What I understand is that the solar winds are causing less cosmic rays to come into the atmosphere to create more clouds, so less clouds more warming. That was the hypothesis drawn by some. Of course the paper does not say this, it is not something that they set out to prove with their research. Its just a conclusion drawn by some in the climate debate. So, what you are saying is the research of the past 50 years shows no real change in cloud cover, what if it was supposed to change and hasn't?
@SkepticalRealist I can see lots of things wrong with the AGW theory. But as far as I can see, theoretically, the foundation of the greenhouse theory appears to conform to well-established modern physics. How much warming it adds to the surface temperate is another question all together. Some say, 33C, based on calculations from the Stefan-Boltzmann law, others say that a cavity-radiation law is not valid when applied to the atmosphere. Whatever the case, I think you're fighting a losing battle.
@CHIPSTERO7 "Whatever the case, I think you're fighting a losing battle."
Perhaps, but I think not. I realize many skeptic accept forcing mechanism and only argue the magnitude of it's influence. However, those questioning the foundation of GHG physics are growing.
I would think that the room temperature would be able to rise above the primary source of energy which is 50C. But of course there is no such thing as a perfectly thermodynamically isolated-system in nature, so I don't think it matters all that much. Let's use a different analogy. Say, for example, you have saucepan heating water at 150C. What happens when you put a lid on that saucepan? You slow the rate at which the heat leaves the saucepan and the saucepan's temperature increases accordingly.
You can try this experiment for yourself at home. This is essentially what is happening with the greenhouse theory. It slows the rate at which radiation leaves the planet and thus its temperature rises.
The room is well insulated and heated via a radiant floor. With a static temperature input to the floor of 50C...what is the maximum temperature of the room?
If the room is sealed, no loss, what is the maximum temperature?
Rerun the experiment with temperature input to the floor -18C...at what point does the room temperature reach 15C.
@SkeptcalRelst To your first question. The temperature of the room depends on how much heat is being lost through the walls. Doesn't it? To answer your second question, if the room is an idealistically thermodynamically isolated-system and no energy can escape through the walls as you appear to be implying then the maximum temperature of the room will of course rise above 50C accordingly. The radiant-energy emitted from the heater has no where to go, it’s trapped and therefore (continued below).
@SkepticalRealist Yes you are treating the Earth as an isolated system. Thie became apparent when you said that you could not increase the temperature of a room by increasing the insulation thereby implying that the room's source of energy was unchanging. However if the room had a constant supplied source of power like a heater, like the Earth has the Sun, then you could increase the temperature of the room by increasing the insulation. The same principle applies with the Earth and atmosphere.
@SkeptiRealist True. But the 2nd law does not forbid the transfer of energy from cold to hot. It applies only to the net transfer of energy. Besides electromagnetic energy is not heat. It only becomes heat when it is absorbed by a body and is converted into kinetic energy - heat. The fact is, greenhouse gases emit radiation multidirectionally and therefore some of the radiation will be re-emitted to the planetary surface where it will be absorbed and cause heating. Basic straightforward physics.
@CHIPSTERO7 GHG do absorb LW radiation. GHG do re-radiate isotropically the absorbed LW . This re-radiated LW can not and does not increases the energy of a higher temperature, higher energy surface. Again, it can slow energy loss not increase the total. The maximum energy radiated is funtion of maximum input not cumulative total of minor inputs. Applying four 25C heat sources to pot of water will not achieve a boil. Applying a single 100C heat source will boil.
@SkepticalRealist Yes it can. You are still confusing an isolated-system with a closed-system. The lid on the saucepan acts as a barrier to prevent the energy from being lost and by recycling the radiation back to it the energy of that radiation warms the water in the saucepan. Where does the energy of that returning radiation go if not into warming the water in the saucepan? This means that the water is not required to heat itself by its own radiation because it is heated by the stove.
@SkepticalRealist You say "Will the water boil?" By my way of thinking yes. But only in an idealistically thermodynamically isolated-system where no energy loss from the system's boundary is permitted. Under such circumstances the energy of the system could double, because no energy loss is ever allowed and so the energy just keeps on accumulating until the saucepan melts. But I am only talking about the notion of back-radiation warming the planet not contravening the laws of thermodynamics.
I agree, slowing the rate of loss will allow a body to retain it's own heat. The blanket will not however, increase the stricken-mountaineer above that which his body produces. That's to say, he is skin will not blister due his own LW reflection. GHG physics, to the contrary, claims a body can increase beyond it' own production...240W/m^2 terrestrial radiation becomes 390W/m^2 via atmosphere re-radiation. Mind you the solar constant is 343 W/m^2.
@SkepticalReast You say “So you are saying the 2nd law is not applicable because earth is closed-system". I am saying that the 2nd law is not relevant because the Earth is not an isolated-system as you have been treating it. A thermodynamically closed-system receives energy from its environment. On the other hand, a thermodynamically isolated system does not and the total amount of energy contained inside it remains constant. Hence the law has different implications for the two types of system.
If they're promoting a hysteria then they're doing a good job. The AGW-conspiracy/hoax douches are pretty hysterical. I think the conspiracy believers are more hysterical than the environmentalist fanatics.
Well, look at it from their POV; AGW is a part of a giant government plot to take over the global economy under the guise of regulation; it's been on the drawing boards for decades ever since a race of subterranean aliens took over the U.S. puppet government and had the last real president JFK murdered for not going along with the NWO agenda. You'd be pretty hysterical too if you knew the TRUTH about AGW like the keyboard climatologists all over the internets.
oh the irony. Follow your own advice then when asked to define radiative forcing,
"It's a canard, a falsehood,...it's an unphysical construct of AGW crowd to promote hysteria. "
Sounds like you may have decided to "resort to irrelevant diatribe" somewhere in there. I always find these kinds of psychological projections fascinating. Nice try though.
Let's see, you and the AGW cult says: the ice caps will melt the oceans will rise submerging great swaths of land, more floods, more droughts, more hurricanes, famine, plagues...WE MUST STOP CO2!
Or the skeptics: CO2 does not and can not warm the earth.
You devotes may label skeptics heretics but hysterical, no. That characterization is reserved for the AGW prophets.
Calm down my friend, you're very hysterical over AGW. We know there aren't going to be any of the catastrophes like in the day after tommorow. Potholer actually debunked some of the alarmist canards himself about Ice Ages, hurricanes, and bla bla bla.
"Potholer actually debunked some of the alarmist canards himself "
But he doesn't debunk CO2 increasing temps. If you think CO2 plays any role in temperature and climate, either now or in the past, then you are an alarmist trying to scare people into handing over control of the global economy. I mean just read this:
"CO2 influences climate"
Isn't that terrifying? I get chills down my spine just typing it. I hope I didn't scare anybody with my alarmism.
I said: The only way to increase energy is to increase input (solar radiation).
I should have said: The only way to increase energy is to increase input (solar radiation) or act upon the input energy to increase conferred temperature.
"What the AGW congregation ignores, the earth energy system is in equilibrium before any forcing takes place.. when 240 W/m^2 SW strikes the earths surface 240 W/m^2 LW is radiated toward space"
eh, before any forcing occurs? LOL, tell us what radiative forcing is.
The principle behind the 2nd law, energy exchanges to reach equilibrium. In fact, the church of AGW evoke this foundation when claiming more LW absorption by CO2 will force temperatures higher...thus establishing a new equilibrium.
What the AGW congregation ignores, the earth energy system is in equilibrium before any forcing takes place. That is, when 240 W/m^2 SW strikes the earths surface 240 W/m^2 LW is radiated toward space
If 0% is absorbed in the atmosphere the system is in equilibrium. Now, if 25% is absorbed...75% is radiated to space directly and AND 25% from the atmosphere equilibrium. As you pointed out the isotopic radiation via the atmosphere is the total absorbed (energy creation 1st law violation). Run the GHG absorption up to 100%, LW radiation to space is 100% and viola, equilibrium is reached.
But these AGW fanatics want there cake and to it too. Back radiation needs to be high to account for the delta energy while being the catalyst for hysteria...but AGW zealots disregard the consequences of their claims (equilibrium) when it runs counter to their hysteria.
However Trenberth appears to ignore this and says that 324W/sq.m of energy is re-emitted to the surface despite the fact that only 235W/sq.m is absorbed by the atmosphere and surface. Surely, taking into consideration the simple fact that the atmosphere emits radiation upwards and downwards equally the maximum upper-limit of back-radiation would be 115.5W/sq.m. Trenberth therefore creates, seemingly out of thin-air, almost 300% more back-radiation than is allowed by the basic laws of physics.
This means that the atmosphere can increase the temperature of the surface and it does so by simply inhibiting the flow of radiation to space. Furthermore, heat-transfer by radiation is different from convection and conduction which both requite the transportation of material. Electromagnetic energy is not heat, it's just an undifferentiated blob of energy. It only becomes heat when it is absorbed by a body. Therefore heat can and does travel from a colder body to a warmer body radiatively.
@SkepticalRealist Yeah, we know you're trying to make the stupid "AGW is falsified by the second law of thermodynamics" argument. Please tell me the last time the sun turned off and you'll have the answer to your question.
Why does the American Physical Society still state that AGW is "incontrovertible" if the 2nd LoTD is a problem?
@robhoneycutt "Why does the American Physical Society still...blah...blah...blah"
I don't know....why? Oh...was that not a joke?
Suppose you robhoneycutt go ask the American Physical Society how can GHG physics (forcing) be utilized in real world engineering design to capitalize on low energy accumulation for high energy output.
When no proposal is given, don't be alarmed robhoneycutt. It's no different then asking evangelist to share Noah's keel and buoyancy calculations with the Navy.
@SkepticalRealist The 2nd law is generally stated as "heat cannot flow spontaneously from a cold body to a warmer body". However to say that this means that the atmosphere cannot increase the temperature of the surface is not true and comes about from a misunderstanding of the 2nd law. The 2nd law applies only to isolated-systems where energy-exchange with the system's surrounding is prohibited. However earth is a closed-system and is continuously supplied with new radiant-energy from the sun.
@CHIPSTERO7 "The 2nd law applies only to isolated-systems where energy-exchange with the system's surrounding is prohibited. However earth is a closed-system and is continuously supplied with new radiant-energy from the sun."
So your saying the 2nd law is not applicable because earth is a closed-system? How then does a ball roll down hill or why an ice cube melts at room temperature or electricity flow? All happens with the earth's "closed-system".
@SkepticalRealist Yes you can. But only if you have a constant source of radiation. The same principle at work here is the same when a stricken-mountaineer applies an IR-reflective survival-blanket. The blanket keeps the person warm because it insulates them by warming the trapped air and by reflecting the IR-radiation produced by the person's metabolism. Similarly the Earth receives new radiant-energy from the Sun which is then absorbed by GHGs and slows the rate at which the radiation leaves.
@robhoneycutt The question is, how much warming can we except from CO2? The atmospheric CO2 content is increasing at the rate of 2ppmv/year. That's approximately an increase of 0.0002% of all the pre-existing particles in the atmosphere (i.e. O, N2O, H2O, CH4, etc). Put it another way it's about 1 molecule in every 500,000 thousand spread evenly throughout the atmosphere. And the IPCC et all tell us that that 1 molecule in 500,000 is increasing the temperature year-in-year-out? Far-fetched, no?
@CHIPSTERO7 It's not far fetched at all if you think of it properly. You have to remember the atmosphere is 10-15km high. Imagine a 1cm cube. Just guessing that has a couple of thousand CO2 molecules. Not many. If the atmosphere was 1cm high those CO2 molecules would have no effect. But you have to look in the other dimension. There are 100,000-150,000 of those cubes stacked on each other. As infrared radiation rises each CO2 molecule absorbs and re-emits that IR radiation... [cont]
@CHIPSTERO7 [cont].... That happens over and over up through the entire height of the atmosphere. What is happening here is that the CO2 molecules are merely slowing the transfer of heat energy (IR) from the surface to the atmosphere. It does not take a large amount of CO2 to have this effect. In fact, it takes very little.
@robhoncutt How do you know? 1 molecule in every 500,000 spread indiscriminately throughout the atmosphere causing an increase the global temperature every year seems preposterous to me. Your objection that the atmosphere is high seems irrelevant not least because the emissivity of CO2 decreases with height and its density increases exponentially with height in accordance with the Maxwell-Boltzmann factor. It has been shown at 600,000ppmv CO2 has an emissivity of 0.003/0.2W/sq.m (Hottel 1954).
Why don't YOU learn to educate yourself and read any of the millions of other books in the library besides the bible or koran? If you want to believe in unexplained 'supernatural' events, there's actual multiple independent reports of alien visitations, UFOs, USOs, even Bigfoot (even though Bigfoot's just an alleged primate, not a supernatural event). There is actual observable evidence and proof for those events. But none for your gods.
@SkeptialRealist The CAGW-theory is scientifically-weak a dyslexic chimp armed with nothing more than a pocket calculator and a few functioning bran-cells could refute it. However I think you may be mistaken in assuming that clouds only have a cooling effect. Surely they inhibit the flow of outgoing radiation too? This fact is easily demonstrable since it is usually warmer after a cloudy night than a cloudless night. But the net effect of clouds is to cool as you say, by 20W/sq.m (Dessler 2010).
"Nope, mankind is the main cause of global warming."
Sounds more like a statement of conviction then fact. I don't generally argue the dogma of one's religion, save when impinging on my rights. If based on scientific principles, please explain why the physics behind the GHG effect can be found nowhere else in the real world. GHG physics is an island of science "reasoning"
So no, AGW is a farce. You have no evidence supporting your claim. It is your religion.
@wstevenschneider "The physics behind the GHG is the same physics behind everything"
Ok. So please explain, if an oven is set to 75C (heating element is a fixed to maintain 75 C, no feedback controls) at what point will LW reflection increase temp to 125C?
What if the oven was set to -18C (same conditions) at what point will LW refection increase temp to 15C?
When you find yourself unable to answer, realize GHG claims it is possible...just add CO2. And realize GHG physics is...unphysical.
@SkepticalRealist Your analogy is poor. Thermal energy in your analogy is being carried away from the oven by conduction and convection. Redesign your thought experiment so it more closely reflects reality and try again.
When you see that you were just trying to pose an unanswerable question rather than pose a serious one, you'll realize that GHG effect is based on established physics and your claim that it is otherwise is fatuous.
The red hot element is not radiating IR? Is not the design of an oven such to minimize all forms of thermal losses?
Be it your belief, and since I've offered a "poor analogy" please provide an equivalent mechanism. Better yet, how can GHG physics (forcing) be utilized in real world engineering design to capitalize on low energy accumulation for high energy output.
@SkepticalRealist It's your analogy that is flawed and you're the one making the claim that the physics of GHG effect is special and somehow wrong. If you can prove that then you'll have not only revolutionized the science of CC, but our understanding of physics as well.
I'll wait to read your paper in the peer-reviewed literature.
Please provide any ANY example (other then GHG) where passive low energy accumulation (warming) increases the energy of the radiating source. Just one example!
So you see wstevenschneider, it's GHG physics which misapplies standard physics. Writing a paper to explain standard physics...well these revolutionary ideas are published. In fact they've been capsulized, bound together and at your disposal...i.e. physics textbooks.
"Please provide any ANY example (other then GHG) where passive low energy accumulation (warming) increases the energy of the radiating source. Just one example!"
I don't think you get how this works. You're making the claim, you're the one who has to provide evidence.
"So you see wstevenschneider, it's GHG physics which misapplies standard physics."
Are you suggesting CO2 trap air masses like a window and warm a pot like a flame? And I'm the parody. I suggest you review potholer first vids on the science AGW. Trapped air masses(convection) and pots of soup (conduction) are not how the climate scientist model GHG forcing.
Perhaps read a bit. When you have sufficient grasp of the science
No, I'm answering your question. The fact that your question is so poorly phrased is your problem. The irony of an ignoramus like you accusing me of not having a "sufficient grasp of the science" is mind-numbing. You have no clue what you're asking, and no clue what you're saying, yet I don't understand the science because I accurately answered your question?
@SkepticalRealist Also, because the atmosphere re-emits radiation multidirectionally (i.e. up and down are split 50:50 proportionality) about half the radiation re-emitted from the planetary surface will be re-radiated back to it. And while some of that radiation will perhaps be immediately re-absorbed by other molecules in the surrounding environment, a small, but real amount will make it back down to the surface and cause will surface warming, however immeasurably small that heating may be.
Even the title of this video is screwed up. More cosmic rays cause cooling. So the appropriate title would be, "Are cosmic rays opposing global warming?"
"Slowing the LW loss is not the same as increasing warmth."
Actually it is. If the rate of loss is less than the rate of gain from incoming radiation, then the result is that the temperature goes up until a new equilibrium point is reached. Fortunately, with clouds, the amount of incoming they reflect is more important than the amount of longwave they keep from escaping.
@vsaluki "Actually it is. If the rate of loss is less than the rate of gain from incoming radiation, then the result is that the temperature goes up until a new equilibrium point is reached."
So if an oven is set to 75C (heating element is a fixed to maintain 75 C, no feedback controls) at what point will LW reflection increase temp to 125C?
What if the oven was set to -18C (same conditions) at what point will LW refection increase temp to 15C?
sorry, i meant to write more clouds cause more cooling. clouds reflect more solar rays and that is more warmth than the amount of warmth than clouds keep in the earth's atmosphere at night. thx for the correction. i was writing in a hurry.
"clouds reflect more solar rays " by rays you mean SW radiation yes? And because clouds reflect more SW, less LW radiation produced at the surface. Clouds also absorb LW. Therefore, more clouds the slower LW is lost to space. I think we agree. Where I see a problem is potholers description of clouds making warmer the earth's surface. Slowing the LW loss is not the same as increasing warmth. Said otherwise, insulation (clouds) does not increase temp beyond radiated temp.
@MoipaGaming Interesting how someone who believes they're so smart, fails to see obvious sarcasm: The Sun "warms" the Earth every single day, starting each morning, and ending each night. Clearly it would be impossible for the Sun's energy to impact Earth's climate.
more clouds cause more warming because albedo keeps out more warmth than clouds that keep the heat generated by solar radiation from escaping. see potholer's 2nd vid called 'climate change the objections'. the explaination begins around the 6:30 mark.
"albedo keeps out more warmth than clouds that keep the heat generated by solar radiation from escaping"
In other words clouds can only cool, clouds add no warming. In other words when potholer54 says "they (clouds) also prevent heat from escaping and therefore have positive warming effect" he is wrong. Clouds as you describe, have only a cooling effect on the earths temperature.
~ 3:35 you say clouds play a dual role, reflecting incoming shortwave (cooling) and reflecting terrestrial LW radiation (warming). How can a source (earths surface) be warmed by it's own reflection. For instance, the contents of my freezer are not warmed by the insulation and the metal shell which traps the cold LW. Likewise, the insulating walls of my oven do not act such the frozen casserole therein is cooked by it's own LW reflection. In fact the oven thermometer drops.
Boy you sure are an arrogant bastard cornholer. None the less good video, However all things global warming are undergraduate claptrap.
Dodger481 1 day ago
There's no such thing. I'm right.
Snoopingkids 1 week ago
nice closing line. One of your best that I've heard.
guwest2 2 weeks ago
@joe035 Met office and UofEA!! Well that settles it, debate over. Thanks for your posts, before reading them I thought CO2 was a waste product that was bad. I guess Venus having all that CO2 in the atmosphere and being the hottest planet is mere coincidence.
atheistcommonsense 3 weeks ago
@atheistcommonsense CO2 is the life gas of the planet, optimal for plant life is well over double the atmosphere’s current level. Forests have CO2 at 600-800 ppm. It is not a waste gas, you have been indoctrinated by a political movement, not a scientific one.
greensense99 3 weeks ago
"Another Mole" what a codescending asshole. Why do you think all these "moles" are attacking your political power grab potholer? Cause it is just that. You are obviously funded by the elite trying to force this CO2 tax on the world, you suck.
greensense99 3 weeks ago
@greensense99 lol what?
prebirth91 3 weeks ago
@prebirth91 What?
greensense99 3 weeks ago
@prebirth91 Funding for Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and too many others to mention, comes from the Rockefeller family, George Soros, Maurice Strong, and again too many to mention on here. These “elite” want the population of the world cut in half at a minimum, right or wrong thats what they have stated they want. CO2 tax is a step toward having that control over life and death. Wake up and smell the coffee, support of this tax is born from ignorance of the scientific facts, and follower mentality.
greensense99 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@greensense99 And lets not forget that 9/11 was an inside job and Kennedy was killed by the sniper in the grassy noel, and we never landed on the moon.
Oh and don't forget your medication. You have a mental problem that you will need to take medication for you know that?
thesparitan 3 days ago
@greensense99 we'd have got away with it if that pesky varmint greeny hadn't foiled us ph. Curses, I can't do my malevolent laugh now.
guwest2 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
greensense99 2 weeks ago
@guwest2 I must agree with greeny, he hasn’t said anything untrue that I can see in past posts. Whats your game guwest?
TheKickerboy99 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@guwest2 LOL Scoobydo rocks.
thesparitan 3 days ago
This video does not “put into perspective" as advertised what Svensmark’s work DOES PROVE, that the Sun does vary how many cosmic rays hit the Earth, and do control cloud cover. If you look at all of the science the work presented is clear and concise. More questions need answered sure, they were born by the work at Cern, and by Henrik Svensmark.
greensense99 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
greensense99 4 weeks ago
Acknowledgement by the UK’s Met Office and the University of East Anglia that not only is the Earth NOT warming, the oven is off and the pilot light is out. Moreover, data collected from more than 30,000 measuring stations and released last week have put the deep freeze on global warming! Global Warming is a hoax perpetrated by liberal politicians wanting to take more control & power over those they say they only want to represent!
joe035 4 weeks ago
@joe035 Well said, thank you.
greensense99 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
greensense99 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WORLD RECORD: BIGGEST WIND TURBINE
Visit: windturbinecarriedbywheels.weebly.com
ZERO-NOISE from gears and generators since they are sealed underground.
SAVES THE BIRDS AND BATS since slow-moving.
DOES NOT OCCUPY A WIDER LANDSCAPE since the turbine can be very tall.
MAY BE LOWER-COST since it may use timber and other cheaper things.
ELUDES HURRICANE FORCE since the V-type folding blades automatically close.
NO FIRE since well-cooled.
HELPS WIND-ENERGY COMPANIES since it is FREE FOR ALL.
TheServiceWeb 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil”
ChristopherMonckton5 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Quality LED lightbulbs (UK Only):
It Should Not Cost The Earth To Save The Planet. Go To www_lightevolution.co.uk
SMDLightEvolution 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I want this video on my 9000 Communicator phone.
augustbuckne717 1 month ago
What do you think controlled our climate before man’s CO2? Think people.
greensense99 2 months ago
@greensense99
Jesus? Thor? Zeus? Cosmic rays?
Jap3tus 1 month ago in playlist Fler videoklipp från potholer54
@Jap3tus My money is on our only source of heat (the sun), and ya, cosmic rays as they have some control on our cloud cover. The zodiac, is a map of our travel through the milky way, this is what causes our ice ages. CO2 has to cause warming by its nature, the amount is what is in debate. As well as how large man’s contribution is, compared to natural causes of CO2 increases. CO2 does not control our climate.
greensense99 1 month ago
@greensense99 don't forget methane from factory farms, that is a much worse contributor than co2, although nobody talks about it, because no body wants to threaten their food source. funny how conflicts interfere with what is true.
SuperAnimalDrummer 1 month ago
Comment removed
greensense99 1 month ago
@SuperAnimalDrummer on a molecule-for-molecule basis the direct radiative effects of methane is about 72 times stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over a 20 year time frame, but it is present in much smaller concentrations so that its total direct radiative effect is smaller. On the other hand, in addition to its direct radiative impact methane has a large indirect radiative effect because it contributes to ozone formation.
greensense99 1 month ago
@greensense99 Nature's CO2? You know before Man started to produce it in Bulk?
BorikeTheBlackDragon 1 month ago
@BorikeTheBlackDragon Right. So what’s your point?
greensense99 1 month ago
@greensense99 The CO2 in the atmosphere is what regulates how much of the Sun's heat is trapped and how much escapes. when the Industrial Revolution happened and Humans started producing mass amounts of CO2 we see in the Ice Layers that or current CO2 is way higher than Nature has been able to get on it's own. The Misinformation campaign against Global Warming has confused people, but their is no debate anymore, higher CO2 causes higher Global Temp. It's been proven Over and over.
BorikeTheBlackDragon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BorikeTheBlackDragon Acknowledgement by the UK’s Met Office and the University of East Anglia that not only is the Earth NOT warming, the oven is off and the pilot light is out. Moreover, data collected from more than 30,000 measuring stations and released last week have put the deep freeze on global warming! NASA & the USAF has confirmed we are heading towards a mini iceage. Don't you find it fascinating how global warming has been rebranded climate change by our media & elected elite??
joe035 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joe035 Can you show me where NASA and the USAF says we are heading to a mini ice age?
thesparitan 3 days ago
@greensense99 Of course Other factors can Control Global Temperature but only CO2 can work on the Time scale we see, Increase in Solar output would be gradual Warming over Millions of years not a sudden spike in recent decades.
BorikeTheBlackDragon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BorikeTheBlackDragon First of all spelling is an indicator of your level of education. Secondly, you are stating untruths. If you check on your own, you will find there has not been any warming at anytime, that is at a rate not recorded before. Even with the CO2 increase. Also you will find, (if you look) that CO2 has never controlled Earth’s temperature. As natural warming has occurred, CO2 has increased, following warming by a few hundred years. You are a follower, not a scholar.
greensense99 1 month ago
@greensense99 We need to start pumping a shit more carbon into the atmosphere, Nasa says were heading towards a mini iceage these global warming advocates should be last in line if the worlds food supply comes up short.
joe035 4 weeks ago
@joe035 I think that may be a ways off, but yes our descendants will one day have to move south to the equator to survive. There used to be a MILE of ice where my house sits, can’t imagine living here then.
greensense99 4 weeks ago
So where are the improper comments are?
nickolascook718 2 months ago
Thanks again potholer. Exposing the real global warming conspiracy one lie at a time.
68spaceman 2 months ago
china usa germany
bobodd5 2 months ago
atmosphere ozone damage
bobodd5 2 months ago
@bobodd5 atomic tests not industrial age
WorldwideWakeupCall 2 months ago
I think the best cloud chamber in the world exists inside darkhairbrainguy's skull... Albeit completely impervious to intelligence rays.
bernzeppi 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is propaganda, over-exaggeration and a lie to say the findings in the experiments at CERN has NO impact on the climate debate.
darkhairedguy 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To make a mockery out of bloggers that does not fully understand the science, does not dismiss the science. Svensmarks theory is strengthened, whether you like it or not.
darkhairedguy 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is correct that this does not fully confirm Henrik Svensmarks theory. Svensmarks theory however, IS STRENGTHENED by the findings at CERN, because the experiments have been conducted in the best cloud chamber in the world. Svensmarks theory has a massive amount of empirical data confirming it, from the global geological temperature record. It has been partially confirmed in experiments in Denmark and the US, and now CERN is picking up the glove.
darkhairedguy 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CERN confirmes that cosmic rays can attribute to cloud cover in the troposphere. These clouds are very important for surface temperature. CERN stated that the previous theory, where low cloud cover could not be explained, since sulpuric acid molecules don't attach readily in this part of the athmosphere. They found that increase in cosmic rays could give such an effect by adding N-ions to the sulphuric acid structures, thus making them more stable. NO DOUBT AT ALL that this finding IS important.
darkhairedguy 3 months ago
No, but chemtrails are! Wake up people. Look, listen and learn. Sometimes common sense is more fact, then the so called science the disinformation agents want you to believe!
marketsdata 3 months ago
@marketsdata "Wake up"? Implying that people who have no scientific understanding of the formation of contrails are "awake" and those who do are "asleep"? That sounds very convincing.
eggroll9000 1 month ago
@eggroll9000 fuck off troll, I didn't even comment on this vid. You dumb-ass. And yes people that are awake know about the Aerosols that are sprayed daily.
Why don't you open your channel up you fake, phony, fraud!
marketsdata 1 month ago
@marketsdata Lol whut? I replied to your comment right here. I'm slightly concerned about your sanity... For more than one reason.
I'll give you a hint: It's not called "being awake", it's called having a psychosis. Can be caused by recreational drug use. I'd suggest you go see a doctor.
eggroll9000 1 month ago
@eggroll9000 FKN troll, This channel not available. why did you avoid the question regarding your channel? Again I never commented on this vid. So you have experience with recreational drug use what "CRaCk" you butt wipe! get off my ass you fake phony fraud
marketsdata 1 month ago
@marketsdata You're funny. I didn't avoid your question regarding my channel, I simply thought it was completely irrelevant.
I'm only using my account to watch videos, not to upload anything. So why are you even interested in my channel? Because you wanna flame it?
eggroll9000 1 month ago
congratulations! you do an enormous amount of good work! I'd go ballistic or murderous after debunking only one of these blogs as completely as you do all of them. a pity, that children these days don't get any education in chemistry anymore or there would be way less trolling here...
elmueador 3 months ago
It is blindly obvious that the Sun is the primary driver of our climate.
david222444 3 months ago
@david222444 wow, really? A gravity is the reason buildings fall down. We just solved two problems today.
grendelee 3 months ago in playlist More videos from potholer54
@grendelee Yes tell that to the IPCC and gravy train so called Climatologists. They seem to think that the Sun acts like a constant "light bulb" they have not seen the light yet as you obviously have.
david222444 3 months ago
@david222444 actually, i think i was making fun of you, lol. You ARE dismissing climate change because of the sun, right?
grendelee 3 months ago
@grendelee Actually I was making fun of you too. The climate is a chaotic system and a trace gas which is heavier than air, tending to hug the ground where plants absorb it by the process of photosynthesis( to be specific the calvn cycle) producing the basis of the planet's food chains. Heat releases co2 from the Oceans and biosphere , therefore past highly active periods of the Sun warmed the planet releasing co2. Man is insignificant. You and your ilk are producers of lies and propagnda.
david222444 3 months ago
@david222444 you just lied and say im lying? C02 doesnt hug the ground, the it mixes with the air, otherwise it couldnt be absorbed by the trees and it would kill us. The air mixes all the gases together by heat and wind, otherwise would just be breathing layers.
To explain my metaphor better, an architect would say "this building fell down because something destroyed these support beams right here" and you would say "You LIAR! The building fell down because of GRAVITY! Its blindly obvious!"
grendelee 3 months ago
Cern's results are actually very important. The results show that there are extraterrestrial forces on climate, and Dr. Kirkby said himself, that they should be included in all climate models.
harrykcin 4 months ago
Many thanks, I look at it more objectively. Thanks plz keep posting.
joergn83 4 months ago
Why bother watching this propaganda?
david222444 4 months ago
@david222444 Do you mean why does potholer read the idiot papers?
Or why does potholer's viewers watch his videos?
IKillBabyKittensLOL 4 months ago in playlist More videos from potholer54
@IKillBabyKittensLOL Twisting the facts again? is it a compulsion?.Go "WATCH" Mike Moron's Hockey stick again.
david222444 4 months ago
@david222444 You mean this video about climate-woo woo propaganda? Because they are full of shit and need to be busted.
ianman6 3 months ago
It's sulfuric with an "f" !
detoxtc 4 months ago
@detoxtc =It's sulfuric with an "f" != Only in America. 'Sulphuric' is the English spelling.
potholer54 4 months ago
@potholer54
In 1990 IUPAC adopted the "sulfuric" spelling as did the Royal Society of Chemistry in 1992. "Sulphuric" is the outdated spelling.
I hate it too, don't worry. Being raised in a primarily British English environment this really irks me.
detoxtc 4 months ago
@potholer54 which is the proper spelling ;)
WorldwideWakeupCall 2 months ago
The news outlets of america are retarded....
fenix144 4 months ago
DAMN! I wish I was as sharp as potholer54, it wasn't that long ago when I wasn't very sceptical of extraordinary claims.
Ashitaka255 4 months ago
eh no the engine as its designed at the moment is xtra strength wind rain snow = fuked boom chernobyl
bobodd5 4 months ago
lol
Nice ending!
EssentialPedagogy 5 months ago
Thank you.
Pazma1 5 months ago
Reading actual scientific papers is how the liberal media brainwash you. Rush limbaugh told me so.
Sybsop 5 months ago
I am not talking about the possibility of doubling the radiation to the planet due to back-radiation or the saucepan in a closed-system which seems absurd. My argument is relatively straightforward and in agreement with physics. Greenhouses gases remit radiation omnidirectionally and some of that radiation will be re-radiated back down to the planet where it will be absorbed because the radiation will be black at all wavelengths. All electromagnetic radiation possesses energy, to some degree.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
Therefore heating will occur however immeasurably small it may be. The situation would be quite different if we were dealing with an isolated-system and there was no constant fresh supply of new energy because the total amount of energy within the system would remain constant. So, in conclusion, I agree that doubling the back-radiation is absurd, although that is not what I am defending. I am defending the concept of the greenhouse theory only. I hope this goes some way to uncrossing our wires.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 part I
"You are still confusing an isolated-system with a closed-system"
No. I realize the stove is inputting energy to the water via saucepan, I realize as the water gains energy the water loses energy as vapor and LW radiation, I realize the lid acts to slow energy loss, I realize because this process exchanges both energy and mater it is an open system.
Make the saucepan and lid glass(transparent to LW) will same processes be observed?
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 part II
If you insulate the side and lid of the saucepan, fix the input at 50C, will the water boil? If the principles behind GHG physics are valid, the reflected LW will effectively double the energy input, thus the water boils.
You asked: "Where does the energy ... if not into warming the water in the saucepan" The low energy LW absorbed by the water does not result in further heating. At best, it can confer to it's source a temperature by which it was radiated.
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
I just deleted my last comment, because I think I got the answer to my question. I have read different places that we had a longer than normal solar minimum, and in the past year or so the sun has been making up for it will increased solar wind. This could explain all the drastic weather changes if this is the case, correct? So, wouldn't this also affect the temperatures? I'm off to research more, because I seem to be confused yet again.
verlouria 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 " ....saucepan heating water at 150C....saucepan and the saucepan's temperature increases accordingly."
The saucepan increase to 150C maximum. Of course, if the lid acts to increase pressure (inhibits escape of water vapor) temperature will exceed 150C. A lid transparent to LW will yield the same results.
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
What I understand is that the solar winds are causing less cosmic rays to come into the atmosphere to create more clouds, so less clouds more warming. That was the hypothesis drawn by some. Of course the paper does not say this, it is not something that they set out to prove with their research. Its just a conclusion drawn by some in the climate debate. So, what you are saying is the research of the past 50 years shows no real change in cloud cover, what if it was supposed to change and hasn't?
verlouria 5 months ago in playlist Climate Change
@SkepticalRealist I can see lots of things wrong with the AGW theory. But as far as I can see, theoretically, the foundation of the greenhouse theory appears to conform to well-established modern physics. How much warming it adds to the surface temperate is another question all together. Some say, 33C, based on calculations from the Stefan-Boltzmann law, others say that a cavity-radiation law is not valid when applied to the atmosphere. Whatever the case, I think you're fighting a losing battle.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CHIPSTERO7 "Whatever the case, I think you're fighting a losing battle."
Perhaps, but I think not. I realize many skeptic accept forcing mechanism and only argue the magnitude of it's influence. However, those questioning the foundation of GHG physics are growing.
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
I would think that the room temperature would be able to rise above the primary source of energy which is 50C. But of course there is no such thing as a perfectly thermodynamically isolated-system in nature, so I don't think it matters all that much. Let's use a different analogy. Say, for example, you have saucepan heating water at 150C. What happens when you put a lid on that saucepan? You slow the rate at which the heat leaves the saucepan and the saucepan's temperature increases accordingly.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
You can try this experiment for yourself at home. This is essentially what is happening with the greenhouse theory. It slows the rate at which radiation leaves the planet and thus its temperature rises.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7
The room is well insulated and heated via a radiant floor. With a static temperature input to the floor of 50C...what is the maximum temperature of the room?
If the room is sealed, no loss, what is the maximum temperature?
Rerun the experiment with temperature input to the floor -18C...at what point does the room temperature reach 15C.
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
@SkeptcalRelst To your first question. The temperature of the room depends on how much heat is being lost through the walls. Doesn't it? To answer your second question, if the room is an idealistically thermodynamically isolated-system and no energy can escape through the walls as you appear to be implying then the maximum temperature of the room will of course rise above 50C accordingly. The radiant-energy emitted from the heater has no where to go, it’s trapped and therefore (continued below).
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
I laughed so hard at the article's title: "Global Warming caused by Sun"
Jesus....stuff like that belongs in the Onion
Sabohaque 5 months ago in playlist More videos from potholer54
@CHIPSTERO7
I'm not treating the earth as a thermodynamically isolated system. But let's agree on the thermodynamic system.
Open system: exchanges both matter and energy
Closed system: exchanges only energy
Isolated system: exchanges nothing and is purely theoretically
Regardless the system, the second law applies the same. Energy goes from high to low, hot to cold...not cold to hot as GHG physics claims.
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
@SkepticalRealist Yes you are treating the Earth as an isolated system. Thie became apparent when you said that you could not increase the temperature of a room by increasing the insulation thereby implying that the room's source of energy was unchanging. However if the room had a constant supplied source of power like a heater, like the Earth has the Sun, then you could increase the temperature of the room by increasing the insulation. The same principle applies with the Earth and atmosphere.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@SkeptiRealist True. But the 2nd law does not forbid the transfer of energy from cold to hot. It applies only to the net transfer of energy. Besides electromagnetic energy is not heat. It only becomes heat when it is absorbed by a body and is converted into kinetic energy - heat. The fact is, greenhouse gases emit radiation multidirectionally and therefore some of the radiation will be re-emitted to the planetary surface where it will be absorbed and cause heating. Basic straightforward physics.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 GHG do absorb LW radiation. GHG do re-radiate isotropically the absorbed LW . This re-radiated LW can not and does not increases the energy of a higher temperature, higher energy surface. Again, it can slow energy loss not increase the total. The maximum energy radiated is funtion of maximum input not cumulative total of minor inputs. Applying four 25C heat sources to pot of water will not achieve a boil. Applying a single 100C heat source will boil.
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
@SkepticalRealist Yes it can. You are still confusing an isolated-system with a closed-system. The lid on the saucepan acts as a barrier to prevent the energy from being lost and by recycling the radiation back to it the energy of that radiation warms the water in the saucepan. Where does the energy of that returning radiation go if not into warming the water in the saucepan? This means that the water is not required to heat itself by its own radiation because it is heated by the stove.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@SkepticalRealist You say "Will the water boil?" By my way of thinking yes. But only in an idealistically thermodynamically isolated-system where no energy loss from the system's boundary is permitted. Under such circumstances the energy of the system could double, because no energy loss is ever allowed and so the energy just keeps on accumulating until the saucepan melts. But I am only talking about the notion of back-radiation warming the planet not contravening the laws of thermodynamics.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CHIPSTERO7
I agree, slowing the rate of loss will allow a body to retain it's own heat. The blanket will not however, increase the stricken-mountaineer above that which his body produces. That's to say, he is skin will not blister due his own LW reflection. GHG physics, to the contrary, claims a body can increase beyond it' own production...240W/m^2 terrestrial radiation becomes 390W/m^2 via atmosphere re-radiation. Mind you the solar constant is 343 W/m^2.
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
@CHIPSTER07 Dude, you're tilting at the best understood aspect of global warming. Not even Lindzen tries to make the case you are.
robhoneycutt 5 months ago
@robhoneycutt That should have read: "Its density decreases exponentially with height".
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@SkepticalReast You say “So you are saying the 2nd law is not applicable because earth is closed-system". I am saying that the 2nd law is not relevant because the Earth is not an isolated-system as you have been treating it. A thermodynamically closed-system receives energy from its environment. On the other hand, a thermodynamically isolated system does not and the total amount of energy contained inside it remains constant. Hence the law has different implications for the two types of system.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@SkepticalRealist
"I answered your question precisely."
Yeah, except you didn't.
"You didn't ask me to define radiative forcing."
Yeah, except I did.
IndividualParties 5 months ago
@IndividualParties "Yeah, except I did."
Where, when...you still haven't.
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
"CO2 does not and can not warm the earth"
Yeah, except it does, can, and has warmed the earth. Why don't you cite a study that you think supports your nonsense.
IndividualParties 5 months ago
If they're promoting a hysteria then they're doing a good job. The AGW-conspiracy/hoax douches are pretty hysterical. I think the conspiracy believers are more hysterical than the environmentalist fanatics.
klesks8686 5 months ago
@klesks8686
Well, look at it from their POV; AGW is a part of a giant government plot to take over the global economy under the guise of regulation; it's been on the drawing boards for decades ever since a race of subterranean aliens took over the U.S. puppet government and had the last real president JFK murdered for not going along with the NWO agenda. You'd be pretty hysterical too if you knew the TRUTH about AGW like the keyboard climatologists all over the internets.
IndividualParties 5 months ago
@IndividualParties you said: "giant government blah...blah ...blah subterranean aliens blah...blah...blah president JFK murdered "
Case in point, you can't argue the science, so resort to irrelevant diatribe. In other words, your hysterical due to my heresy.
Thanks for proving my contention.
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
@SkepticalRealist
oh the irony. Follow your own advice then when asked to define radiative forcing,
"It's a canard, a falsehood,...it's an unphysical construct of AGW crowd to promote hysteria. "
Sounds like you may have decided to "resort to irrelevant diatribe" somewhere in there. I always find these kinds of psychological projections fascinating. Nice try though.
IndividualParties 5 months ago
@IndividualParties you asked "LOL, tell us what radiative forcing is"
I answered your question precisely. You didn't ask me to define radiative forcing.
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
@klesks8686
Let's see, you and the AGW cult says: the ice caps will melt the oceans will rise submerging great swaths of land, more floods, more droughts, more hurricanes, famine, plagues...WE MUST STOP CO2!
Or the skeptics: CO2 does not and can not warm the earth.
You devotes may label skeptics heretics but hysterical, no. That characterization is reserved for the AGW prophets.
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
@SkepticalRealist
Calm down my friend, you're very hysterical over AGW. We know there aren't going to be any of the catastrophes like in the day after tommorow. Potholer actually debunked some of the alarmist canards himself about Ice Ages, hurricanes, and bla bla bla.
klesks8686 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@klesks8686
"Potholer actually debunked some of the alarmist canards himself "
But he doesn't debunk CO2 increasing temps. If you think CO2 plays any role in temperature and climate, either now or in the past, then you are an alarmist trying to scare people into handing over control of the global economy. I mean just read this:
"CO2 influences climate"
Isn't that terrifying? I get chills down my spine just typing it. I hope I didn't scare anybody with my alarmism.
IndividualParties 5 months ago
@klesks8686 "We know there aren't going to be any of the catastrophes like in the day after tommorow"
Agreed CAGW is not on the horizon, not tomorrow not in fifty years not ever.
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7
I said: The only way to increase energy is to increase input (solar radiation).
I should have said: The only way to increase energy is to increase input (solar radiation) or act upon the input energy to increase conferred temperature.
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
"What the AGW congregation ignores, the earth energy system is in equilibrium before any forcing takes place.. when 240 W/m^2 SW strikes the earths surface 240 W/m^2 LW is radiated toward space"
eh, before any forcing occurs? LOL, tell us what radiative forcing is.
IndividualParties 5 months ago
@IndividualParties "LOL, tell us what radiative forcing is. "
It's a canard, a falsehood,...it's an unphysical construct of AGW crowd to promote hysteria.
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 part I
The principle behind the 2nd law, energy exchanges to reach equilibrium. In fact, the church of AGW evoke this foundation when claiming more LW absorption by CO2 will force temperatures higher...thus establishing a new equilibrium.
What the AGW congregation ignores, the earth energy system is in equilibrium before any forcing takes place. That is, when 240 W/m^2 SW strikes the earths surface 240 W/m^2 LW is radiated toward space
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 part II
If 0% is absorbed in the atmosphere the system is in equilibrium. Now, if 25% is absorbed...75% is radiated to space directly and AND 25% from the atmosphere equilibrium. As you pointed out the isotopic radiation via the atmosphere is the total absorbed (energy creation 1st law violation). Run the GHG absorption up to 100%, LW radiation to space is 100% and viola, equilibrium is reached.
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 part II
But these AGW fanatics want there cake and to it too. Back radiation needs to be high to account for the delta energy while being the catalyst for hysteria...but AGW zealots disregard the consequences of their claims (equilibrium) when it runs counter to their hysteria.
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7
"This means that the atmosphere can increase the temperature of the surface and it does so by simply inhibiting the flow of radiation to space."
Inhibiting flow (insulation) can not and does not increase LW radiation. The only way to increase energy is to increase input (solar radiation).
You can not increase the temperature of your house by insulating, you can only slow the loss of heat as produced by your furnace.
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
That should be "117.5W/sq.m".
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
However Trenberth appears to ignore this and says that 324W/sq.m of energy is re-emitted to the surface despite the fact that only 235W/sq.m is absorbed by the atmosphere and surface. Surely, taking into consideration the simple fact that the atmosphere emits radiation upwards and downwards equally the maximum upper-limit of back-radiation would be 115.5W/sq.m. Trenberth therefore creates, seemingly out of thin-air, almost 300% more back-radiation than is allowed by the basic laws of physics.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 It sounds to me more like you just don't yet understand Trenberth's work rather than Trenberth somehow got something wrong.
robhoneycutt 5 months ago
That should be "require" not "requite".
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
This means that the atmosphere can increase the temperature of the surface and it does so by simply inhibiting the flow of radiation to space. Furthermore, heat-transfer by radiation is different from convection and conduction which both requite the transportation of material. Electromagnetic energy is not heat, it's just an undifferentiated blob of energy. It only becomes heat when it is absorbed by a body. Therefore heat can and does travel from a colder body to a warmer body radiatively.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@SkepticalRealist Yeah, we know you're trying to make the stupid "AGW is falsified by the second law of thermodynamics" argument. Please tell me the last time the sun turned off and you'll have the answer to your question.
Why does the American Physical Society still state that AGW is "incontrovertible" if the 2nd LoTD is a problem?
robhoneycutt 5 months ago
@robhoneycutt "Why does the American Physical Society still...blah...blah...blah"
I don't know....why? Oh...was that not a joke?
Suppose you robhoneycutt go ask the American Physical Society how can GHG physics (forcing) be utilized in real world engineering design to capitalize on low energy accumulation for high energy output.
When no proposal is given, don't be alarmed robhoneycutt. It's no different then asking evangelist to share Noah's keel and buoyancy calculations with the Navy.
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
@SkepticalRealist The 2nd law is generally stated as "heat cannot flow spontaneously from a cold body to a warmer body". However to say that this means that the atmosphere cannot increase the temperature of the surface is not true and comes about from a misunderstanding of the 2nd law. The 2nd law applies only to isolated-systems where energy-exchange with the system's surrounding is prohibited. However earth is a closed-system and is continuously supplied with new radiant-energy from the sun.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 "The 2nd law applies only to isolated-systems where energy-exchange with the system's surrounding is prohibited. However earth is a closed-system and is continuously supplied with new radiant-energy from the sun."
So your saying the 2nd law is not applicable because earth is a closed-system? How then does a ball roll down hill or why an ice cube melts at room temperature or electricity flow? All happens with the earth's "closed-system".
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
@SkepticalRealist Yes you can. But only if you have a constant source of radiation. The same principle at work here is the same when a stricken-mountaineer applies an IR-reflective survival-blanket. The blanket keeps the person warm because it insulates them by warming the trapped air and by reflecting the IR-radiation produced by the person's metabolism. Similarly the Earth receives new radiant-energy from the Sun which is then absorbed by GHGs and slows the rate at which the radiation leaves.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@robhoneycutt The question is, how much warming can we except from CO2? The atmospheric CO2 content is increasing at the rate of 2ppmv/year. That's approximately an increase of 0.0002% of all the pre-existing particles in the atmosphere (i.e. O, N2O, H2O, CH4, etc). Put it another way it's about 1 molecule in every 500,000 thousand spread evenly throughout the atmosphere. And the IPCC et all tell us that that 1 molecule in 500,000 is increasing the temperature year-in-year-out? Far-fetched, no?
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 It's not far fetched at all if you think of it properly. You have to remember the atmosphere is 10-15km high. Imagine a 1cm cube. Just guessing that has a couple of thousand CO2 molecules. Not many. If the atmosphere was 1cm high those CO2 molecules would have no effect. But you have to look in the other dimension. There are 100,000-150,000 of those cubes stacked on each other. As infrared radiation rises each CO2 molecule absorbs and re-emits that IR radiation... [cont]
robhoneycutt 5 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 [cont].... That happens over and over up through the entire height of the atmosphere. What is happening here is that the CO2 molecules are merely slowing the transfer of heat energy (IR) from the surface to the atmosphere. It does not take a large amount of CO2 to have this effect. In fact, it takes very little.
robhoneycutt 5 months ago
@robhoncutt How do you know? 1 molecule in every 500,000 spread indiscriminately throughout the atmosphere causing an increase the global temperature every year seems preposterous to me. Your objection that the atmosphere is high seems irrelevant not least because the emissivity of CO2 decreases with height and its density increases exponentially with height in accordance with the Maxwell-Boltzmann factor. It has been shown at 600,000ppmv CO2 has an emissivity of 0.003/0.2W/sq.m (Hottel 1954).
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
@GivingYouTruth
Why don't YOU learn to educate yourself and read any of the millions of other books in the library besides the bible or koran? If you want to believe in unexplained 'supernatural' events, there's actual multiple independent reports of alien visitations, UFOs, USOs, even Bigfoot (even though Bigfoot's just an alleged primate, not a supernatural event). There is actual observable evidence and proof for those events. But none for your gods.
mphello 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SkeptialRealist The CAGW-theory is scientifically-weak a dyslexic chimp armed with nothing more than a pocket calculator and a few functioning bran-cells could refute it. However I think you may be mistaken in assuming that clouds only have a cooling effect. Surely they inhibit the flow of outgoing radiation too? This fact is easily demonstrable since it is usually warmer after a cloudy night than a cloudless night. But the net effect of clouds is to cool as you say, by 20W/sq.m (Dessler 2010).
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
Nope, mankind is the main cause of global warming.
stopglobalwarming08 5 months ago
@stopglobalwarming08
"Nope, mankind is the main cause of global warming."
Sounds more like a statement of conviction then fact. I don't generally argue the dogma of one's religion, save when impinging on my rights. If based on scientific principles, please explain why the physics behind the GHG effect can be found nowhere else in the real world. GHG physics is an island of science "reasoning"
So no, AGW is a farce. You have no evidence supporting your claim. It is your religion.
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
@SkepticalRealist "please explain why the physics behind the GHG effect can be found nowhere else in the real world"
The physics behind the GHG is the same physics behind everything else. Your statement is nonsensical.
wstevenschneider 5 months ago
@wstevenschneider "The physics behind the GHG is the same physics behind everything"
Ok. So please explain, if an oven is set to 75C (heating element is a fixed to maintain 75 C, no feedback controls) at what point will LW reflection increase temp to 125C?
What if the oven was set to -18C (same conditions) at what point will LW refection increase temp to 15C?
When you find yourself unable to answer, realize GHG claims it is possible...just add CO2. And realize GHG physics is...unphysical.
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
Comment removed
wstevenschneider 5 months ago
Comment removed
wstevenschneider 5 months ago
@SkepticalRealist Your analogy is poor. Thermal energy in your analogy is being carried away from the oven by conduction and convection. Redesign your thought experiment so it more closely reflects reality and try again.
When you see that you were just trying to pose an unanswerable question rather than pose a serious one, you'll realize that GHG effect is based on established physics and your claim that it is otherwise is fatuous.
wstevenschneider 5 months ago
Comment removed
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wstevenschneider
The red hot element is not radiating IR? Is not the design of an oven such to minimize all forms of thermal losses?
Be it your belief, and since I've offered a "poor analogy" please provide an equivalent mechanism. Better yet, how can GHG physics (forcing) be utilized in real world engineering design to capitalize on low energy accumulation for high energy output.
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
@SkepticalRealist It's your analogy that is flawed and you're the one making the claim that the physics of GHG effect is special and somehow wrong. If you can prove that then you'll have not only revolutionized the science of CC, but our understanding of physics as well.
I'll wait to read your paper in the peer-reviewed literature.
wstevenschneider 5 months ago
@wstevenschneider To which analogy are you referring?
Please provide any ANY example (other then GHG) where passive low energy accumulation (warming) increases the energy of the radiating source. Just one example!
So you see wstevenschneider, it's GHG physics which misapplies standard physics. Writing a paper to explain standard physics...well these revolutionary ideas are published. In fact they've been capsulized, bound together and at your disposal...i.e. physics textbooks.
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SkepticalRealist
"Please provide any ANY example (other then GHG) where passive low energy accumulation (warming) increases the energy of the radiating source. Just one example!"
I don't think you get how this works. You're making the claim, you're the one who has to provide evidence.
"So you see wstevenschneider, it's GHG physics which misapplies standard physics."
Evidence?
wstevenschneider 5 months ago
@SkepticalRealist
One example? Have you never opened a car on a hot summer day? Cooked a pot of soup?
You're a parody, right?
c6gunner 5 months ago
@c6gunner
Are you suggesting CO2 trap air masses like a window and warm a pot like a flame? And I'm the parody. I suggest you review potholer first vids on the science AGW. Trapped air masses(convection) and pots of soup (conduction) are not how the climate scientist model GHG forcing.
Perhaps read a bit. When you have sufficient grasp of the science
Try again. Just one example!
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
@SkepticalRealist
No, I'm answering your question. The fact that your question is so poorly phrased is your problem. The irony of an ignoramus like you accusing me of not having a "sufficient grasp of the science" is mind-numbing. You have no clue what you're asking, and no clue what you're saying, yet I don't understand the science because I accurately answered your question?
c6gunner 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SkepticalRealist
One example? Have you never opened a car on a hot summer day? Cooked a pot of soup?
You're a parody, right?
c6gunner 5 months ago
@SkepticalRealist Also, because the atmosphere re-emits radiation multidirectionally (i.e. up and down are split 50:50 proportionality) about half the radiation re-emitted from the planetary surface will be re-radiated back to it. And while some of that radiation will perhaps be immediately re-absorbed by other molecules in the surrounding environment, a small, but real amount will make it back down to the surface and cause will surface warming, however immeasurably small that heating may be.
CHIPSTERO7 5 months ago
Even the title of this video is screwed up. More cosmic rays cause cooling. So the appropriate title would be, "Are cosmic rays opposing global warming?"
vsaluki 5 months ago
"Slowing the LW loss is not the same as increasing warmth."
Actually it is. If the rate of loss is less than the rate of gain from incoming radiation, then the result is that the temperature goes up until a new equilibrium point is reached. Fortunately, with clouds, the amount of incoming they reflect is more important than the amount of longwave they keep from escaping.
vsaluki 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vsaluki "Actually it is. If the rate of loss is less than the rate of gain from incoming radiation, then the result is that the temperature goes up until a new equilibrium point is reached."
So if an oven is set to 75C (heating element is a fixed to maintain 75 C, no feedback controls) at what point will LW reflection increase temp to 125C?
What if the oven was set to -18C (same conditions) at what point will LW refection increase temp to 15C?
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
sorry, i meant to write more clouds cause more cooling. clouds reflect more solar rays and that is more warmth than the amount of warmth than clouds keep in the earth's atmosphere at night. thx for the correction. i was writing in a hurry.
freethinker69 5 months ago
@freethinker69
"clouds reflect more solar rays " by rays you mean SW radiation yes? And because clouds reflect more SW, less LW radiation produced at the surface. Clouds also absorb LW. Therefore, more clouds the slower LW is lost to space. I think we agree. Where I see a problem is potholers description of clouds making warmer the earth's surface. Slowing the LW loss is not the same as increasing warmth. Said otherwise, insulation (clouds) does not increase temp beyond radiated temp.
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MoipaGaming Interesting how someone who believes they're so smart, fails to see obvious sarcasm: The Sun "warms" the Earth every single day, starting each morning, and ending each night. Clearly it would be impossible for the Sun's energy to impact Earth's climate.
BoogieWithStew 5 months ago
more clouds cause more warming because albedo keeps out more warmth than clouds that keep the heat generated by solar radiation from escaping. see potholer's 2nd vid called 'climate change the objections'. the explaination begins around the 6:30 mark.
freethinker69 5 months ago
@freethinker69
"albedo keeps out more warmth than clouds that keep the heat generated by solar radiation from escaping"
In other words clouds can only cool, clouds add no warming. In other words when potholer54 says "they (clouds) also prevent heat from escaping and therefore have positive warming effect" he is wrong. Clouds as you describe, have only a cooling effect on the earths temperature.
SkepticalRealist 5 months ago
potholer54
~ 3:35 you say clouds play a dual role, reflecting incoming shortwave (cooling) and reflecting terrestrial LW radiation (warming). How can a source (earths surface) be warmed by it's own reflection. For instance, the contents of my freezer are not warmed by the insulation and the metal shell which traps the cold LW. Likewise, the insulating walls of my oven do not act such the frozen casserole therein is cooked by it's own LW reflection. In fact the oven thermometer drops.