Yet more proof.

[BeElBeeBub]

Mansplaining at its best!!
But you still dodge my post showing the models to be utter crap.

Yeah but your previous posts implied that you didn't appreciate that.

For example your bringing up the low specific heat of CO2 gas as some sort of killer evidence against man made climate change.

[Nick]

Bang on

And crucially, the only way the earth loses heat is via infra red radiation back into space.

If we reduce the amount that the earth can radiate out, there is an imbalance between energy in and out which ultimately manifests as higher temperatures.

Think of it like filling the bath with the plug out. Water flows in and out.  As long as the two rates are balanced the water level remains the same.  But if the plug is blocked slightly the level slowly builds up.

Mansplaining at its best!!
But you still dodge my post showing the models to be utter crap. 

[BeElBeeBub]

Fair enough, the infra-red rays of the sun carry the energy to earth which heats it when they strike matter.

Bang on

And crucially, the only way the earth loses heat is via infra red radiation back into space.

If we reduce the amount that the earth can radiate out, there is an imbalance between energy in and out which ultimately manifests as higher temperatures.

Think of it like filling the bath with the plug out. Water flows in and out.  As long as the two rates are balanced the water level remains the same.  But if the plug is blocked slightly the level slowly builds up.

[Barry]

Fair enough, the infra-red rays of the sun carry the energy to earth which heats it when they strike matter.

[Scott777]

In that case, it is incredible that the Sun heats the Earth. So maybe heat does travel through space, Scott.

Sure, the sun heats the earth, but not by heat travelling through space.  It's energy in the form of EM radiation.  It becomes heat when it touches the earth.  Heat cannot travel in space.  Heat is thermal energy, defined as: "kinetic energy of vibrating and colliding atoms in a substance."  Heat requires a substance to move through.  There are no molecules in space, it is basically a vacuum (only traces).

[Nick]

In that case, it is incredible that the Sun heats the Earth. So maybe heat does travel through space, Scott.

Heat is the rate at which molecules vibrate, space is a void therefore no heat. The energy from the sun is radiated, it only turns to heat when it impacts molecules. In reality it only turns to heat when it reaches Earth. If it impacts a single molecule en-route, technically there will be heat, but won't even be measurable.

[Barry]

Heat doesn't really travel through space at all.  Energy does, as in EM radiation, but that's not heat.

In that case, it is incredible that the Sun heats the Earth. So maybe heat does travel through space, Scott.

[Nick]

You haven't posted anything that shows climate models are worthless.

What is this then?

Firstly, all you're doing is telling us what has happened, we can all see that. How about some science that proves anthropogenic CO2 is causing the warming, all you're doing at the moment is fear mongering with wild claims and inaccurate models. And here is your inaccuracies. 

1. The Sun's energy has been measured at 342 Watts per sq/m, the effect of the anthropogenic CO2 has been estimated at 0.036 Watts per sq/m or 0.01% of the Sun's energy. That means that if the measurement of the Sun's energy is out by 0.01%, the added CO2 effect is swamped. 


2. Clouds reduce the Sun's energy hitting the Earth by 28 Watts per sq/m, the climate modellers acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to model them because they are amorphous, residing at different levels and on top of each other. This gives the models an uncertainty of 4 Watts per sq/m, that's 110 times the estimated effect of the added CO2. 


The total combined errors in the climate models are calculated at 150 Watts per sq/m, that's 4000 times the amount the additional CO2 is said to cause. 

So excuse me if I don't fall for the CO2 lobby. 

[BeElBeeBub]

Why have you totally ignored the post that shows the Climate Models worthless?
You also ignored the question asking if you agree the Earth will be frozen within a few days if the sun didn't rise. You seem to dodge all the aspects that go against the Global Warming doctrine.

You haven't posted anything that shows climate models are worthless.

Your OP linked to a report that we had had a cold November night and then you asked the question...

The great anthropogenic believers on here need to explain this one cause as you can see the winters are getting colder. 

I then linked showing that the winter in question was actually significantly warmer than the average and was in fact one for the 10.warmest on record (5 of which are in the last decade) 

You haven't yet answered that rebuttal! Instead you went off about co2 experiments 

And to directly answer your question, of course the earth would be frozen if the sun went out. 

[Nick]

Before I go on, can I ask - are you coming up with this debunking yourself or are you refering to a website or article?

I ask because your focus on how much heat various gasses can hold seems odd - I've not seen that argument come up before(for good reasons).


Right, on with the rest .....

The experiment you mention, heating a container if CO2 then observing it cook down...  is an experiment. One that tells you what the specific heat capacity of CO2 at a given temperature and pressure. This data has been know (and used) by scientists and engineers for over a century. The NYT didn't need to do an experiment, it could look up the widely available property tables of CO2 (and other gasses).

What it *isn't* is an experiment with much bearing on the climate change debate.

This is because the specific heat of the atmosphere is not the driver of global warming.

The transmission of various wavelengths of EM radiation both incoming and outgoing are the key factors (along with the specific heats, absorption and emissions characteristics of various materials like soil, rock, forest, sea surface etc)

What you have done by citing that experiment as evidence against global warming is akin to a flat earther tipping a bucket of water upside down then going "see water falls down, so how can the earth be a globe if the water doesn't fall off! HA!"

Why have you totally ignored the post that shows the Climate Models worthless?
You also ignored the question asking if you agree the Earth will be frozen within a few days if the sun didn't rise. You seem to dodge all the aspects that go against the Global Warming doctrine. 

[BeElBeeBub]

Heat doesn't really travel through space at all.  Energy does, as in EM radiation, but that's not heat.

Yes, I'm trying to use small words.

"The only way the earth can lose heat energy is as EM radiation (predominantly as long waver IR) emitted from the surface, traveling through the atmosphere and out into space"

[BeElBeeBub]

All you have done is state exactly what I said, the the earth heats up and then cools down, where have I said that this doesn't happen?
This is not my science, this is from the NY Times, it is actually scientific evidence.
Another experiment they did was heat a large container of CO2 with IR, the CO2 lost all its gained heat in 3 minutes 45 seconds, this is science not theory: that's why real experimental science does not have peer reviews, it doesn't need them because it is actual real world measurements.

Before I go on, can I ask - are you coming up with this debunking yourself or are you refering to a website or article?

I ask because your focus on how much heat various gasses can hold seems odd - I've not seen that argument come up before(for good reasons).


Right, on with the rest .....

The experiment you mention, heating a container if CO2 then observing it cook down...   is an experiment. One that tells you what the specific heat capacity of CO2 at a given temperature and pressure. This data has been know (and used) by scientists and engineers for over a century. The NYT didn't need to do an experiment, it could look up the widely available property tables of CO2 (and other gasses).

What it *isn't* is an experiment with much bearing on the climate change debate.

This is because the specific heat of the atmosphere is not the driver of global warming.

The transmission of various wavelengths of EM radiation both incoming and outgoing are the key factors (along with the specific heats, absorption and emissions characteristics of various materials like soil, rock, forest, sea surface etc)

What you have done by citing that experiment as evidence against global warming is akin to a flat earther tipping a bucket of water upside down then going "see water falls down, so how can the earth be a globe if the water doesn't fall off! HA!"

[Scott777]

Look up Lake Agassiz

The flood that may have contributed to doggerland's submersion was causes when the last of the ice shelf around Hudson bay melted

And what caused the flooding or the melting?

[Scott777]

The *only* way the planet loses the heat it gains from the sun is by radiating it away into space.

Heat doesn't really travel through space at all.  Energy does, as in EM radiation, but that's not heat.

[Nick]

Yes the earth's temperature has naturally  risen and fallen many times in *earth's* hidtory.  Sometimes to much more extreme levels than now (or predicted).

That fact is missing the point

The changes we are now seeing are the most extreme in *human* history.  The entire pattern of human civilization is built on the climate. Look at global population distribution. There are lots of people where the temperatures and rainfall are conducive to human habitation and little where it isn't.  Now imagine what would happen if SE Asia became too hot and the monsoons failed? What if the grain belt of the US became a desert like Arizona?  What if N Europe's climate shifted to be more like that if other parts of the world at the same latitude, like Newfoundland?





How much will that affect our economy?

Firstly, all you're doing is telling us what has happened, we can all see that. How about some science that proves anthropogenic CO2 is causing the warming, all you're doing at the moment is fear mongering with wild claims and inaccurate models. And here is your inaccuracies. 

1. The Sun's energy has been measured at 342 Watts per sq/m, the effect of the anthropogenic CO2 has been estimated at 0.036 Watts per sq/m or 0.01% of the Sun's energy. That means that if the measurement of the Sun's energy is out by 0.01%, the added CO2 effect is swamped. 


2. Clouds reduce the Sun's energy hitting the Earth by 28 Watts per sq/m, the climate modellers acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to model them because they are amorphous, residing at different levels and on top of each other. This gives the models an uncertainty of 4 Watts per sq/m, that's 110 times the estimated effect of the added CO2. 


The total combined errors in the climate models are calculated at 150 Watts per sq/m, that's 4000 times the amount the additional CO2 is said to cause. 

So excuse me if I don't fall for the CO2 lobby.