Yet more proof.

[BeElBeeBub]

There is no scientific proof of any of that and there is tons of scientific proof and historical data to prove the opposite.

No proof?

Which do you disagree with?

The rise in Co2?

The rise in global temps?

[Nick]

You contend that the rise from sub 300ppm to over 400ppm of co2 has had an insignificant effect on the energy balance of the earth and something else must be responsible for the observed (and I think agreed upon) rose in global temperatures.

I contend that the rise in Co2 (and equivalent gasses) is responsible for the majority of that change in energy balance and hence the global temp rise.

There is no scientific proof of any of that and there is tons of scientific proof and historical data to prove the opposite. 

[BeElBeeBub]

No they're not, why would you just use a figure based on the Equator? You use an average seeing as we are talking about GLOBAL warming.

Because the thing we are interested in (at a high level) is the energy the earth receives and radiates.

The 1300 figure is multiplied by the silhouette area of the earth and then a year to get the annual energy input.

The 342 figure is multiplied by the earth's area and then a year to get to the same figure.

[BeElBeeBub]

Do you accept the 342 watts per sq/m. ?

Do you accept the Earth would freeze within a few days without the Sun?

Yes and yes.

Where does that get us?

We have an agreed upon figure for the energy input to the earth in a year 

And we agree if that input were to cease the earth would cool down and eventually become an ice ball.

Where we seem to disagree is:

You contend that the rise from sub 300ppm to over 400ppm of co2 has had an insignificant effect on the energy balance of the earth and something else must be responsible for the observed (and I think agreed upon) rose in global temperatures.

I contend that the rise in Co2 (and equivalent gasses) is responsible for the majority of that change in energy balance and hence the global temp rise.

Is that correct?

[Nick]

I think I see the discrepancy. Again we are at cross purposes.

There is the total energy received by the earth in a year divided by the total area (342w)

Then there is the energy per m² perpendicular to the earth/sun axis (1300w)

From a planetary point of view they are just different ways of if expressing the same thing

No they're not, why would you just use a figure based on the Equator? You use an average seeing as we are talking about GLOBAL warming. 

[Nick]

I have never disputed that the sun is almost the entire source of the earth's heat. I agree geological processes barely register

And at no point have I said that co2 is the source of earth's heat. It (amd other green house gasses) main role is changing the transmissive properties of our atmosphere and so changing the amount of solar energy that enters and leaves the earth.

Do you accept the 342 watts per sq/m. ?

Do you accept the Earth would freeze within a few days without the Sun?

[BeElBeeBub]

.

342 watts per sq/M as per NASA so you are wrong on every one of your points.

I think I see the discrepancy. Again we are at cross purposes.

There is the total energy received by the earth in a year divided by the total area (342w)

Then there is the energy per m² perpendicular to the earth/sun axis (1300w)

From a planetary point of view they are just different ways of if expressing the same thing 

[BeElBeeBub]

The Sun is the entire source of Earth's heat, geological events barely register. No, CO2 is not a source of Earth's heat.

I have never disputed that the sun is almost the entire source of the earth's heat. I agree geological processes barely register

And at no point have I said that co2 is the source of earth's heat. It (amd other green house gasses) main role is changing the transmissive properties of our atmosphere and so changing the amount of solar energy that enters and leaves the earth.

[BeElBeeBub]

Survival blankets work on a multitude of levels.
They reduce heat radiation loss, convicted heat loss, evaporation of sweat, they block the wind and rain. So no, entirely different and cannot be used as an analogy.

Obviously they have multiple mechanisms but the *silver* component is there to prevent radiative heat loss. 

The other mechanisms you mention would be achieved by a bin liner.

Simply erecting an awning above you on a cold clear night will make a difference.

But we digress 

The point is: changes to the atmospheric make up change the amount of outgoing energy the earth radiates away.

The atmosphere doesn't completely stop the loss, only reduces it.

Our addition of co2 is reducing the amount of energy the earth looses this the earth is heating up until the balance is restored.

[Nick]

Now can you explain how this argument holds up given the winter in question was one of the 10 warmest ever measured?

Simple: there are many factors governing our weather, mainly Sun Spots and the way they dictate the level of cloud cover we have. 
Individual Sun Spots dictate our weather, Sun Spot cycles are part of the process that dictates our climate. 
You only ever reference a theory or a model, not once have I seen a single scientific example that proofs man made CO2 is causing global warming. CO2 is up, temperature is up therefore the CO2 is causing it, it's the worst science in the history of science. Ducks float, wood floats, Ducks are made of wood!!

[Nick]

You mean this post?

Right,  it appears your source data was an article by denier Patrick Frank (https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/a-climate-of-belief)

There are several things that make me doubt the reliability of that paper.

First he quotes the incoming solar energy as 342w/m². This does not seem correct in this context.

NASA quote the figure as closer to 1300w/m² at the upper atmosphere and 1000w/m² at the surface.

He also takes about being absorbed by the atmosphere, as if the entirety of global warming was down to the simple direct heating of the atmosphere by passing radiation when the radiative insulating effect of the atmosphere is more important.

The increase in Co2 (and other gasses) makes the atmosphere more "reflective" (it's alot more complex than that) to the wavelengths of IR the earth, oceans etc radiate which stops heat escaping.

You can see this exact principle in action with silver survival blankets. They have negligible thermal mass, yet they can drastically reduce the heat losses from person by reflecting their own infra red radiation back at them especially on clear nights.

Survival blankets work on a multitude of levels. 
They reduce heat radiation loss, convicted heat loss, evaporation of sweat, they block the wind and rain. So no, entirely different and cannot be used as an analogy. 

Again you're wrong, the atmosphere does not stop heat from escaping, it reduces the amount that escapes. Hence the reason the Earth would be frozen within a few days. 

The Sun is the entire source of Earth's heat, geological events barely register. No, CO2 is not a source of Earth's heat. 

342 watts per sq/M as per NASA so you are wrong on every one of your points. 

[BeElBeeBub]

Let's get it straight, if the Earth is warming, it warms both in summer and winter... Unless these scientists are saying the CO2 disappears in winter then comes back just in time for summer! Here's the thing, if there is a slight change in azimuth or trajectory of the Earth you will get a bigger variation from winter to summer, if the Earth is warming  due to  CO2 you wouldn't, the greenhouse effect would keep retaining more heat and the whole heat cycle of the Earth would move: it isn't.

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

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67564025

Now can you explain how this argument holds up given the winter in question was one of the 10 warmest ever measured?

[BeElBeeBub]

No, I e showed you why you can't trust the models, and that's basically all you've got. But yet again you totally ignore it, is it cause you've been found out?
Do I need to post it for a third time?

Mr Frank makes a big deal about how you can't trust the models - talking about measurement inaccuracy and compound errors 

The people who make climate models are not idiots. They understand these problems.

There are statistical methods to account for, correct and understand these issues - which Mr Frank doesn't seem to be aware of.

There is a quite lengthy (and frankly boring) look at his argument about how we can't even know if there is warming due to measurement inaccuracy.

(TLDR: we can - using statistical theory)
https://skepticalscience.com/frank_propagation_uncertainty.html

[BeElBeeBub]

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.

You mean this post?

Right,  it appears your source data was an article by denier Patrick Frank (https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/a-climate-of-belief)

There are several things that make me doubt the reliability of that paper.

First he quotes the incoming solar energy as 342w/m². This does not seem correct in this context.

NASA quote the figure as closer to 1300w/m² at the upper atmosphere and 1000w/m² at the surface.

He also takes about being absorbed by the atmosphere, as if the entirety of global warming was down to the simple direct heating of the atmosphere by passing radiation when the radiative insulating effect of the atmosphere is more important.

The increase in Co2 (and other gasses) makes the atmosphere more "reflective" (it's alot more complex than that) to the wavelengths of IR the earth, oceans etc radiate which stops heat escaping.

You can see this exact principle in action with silver survival blankets. They have negligible thermal mass, yet they can drastically reduce the heat losses from person by reflecting their own infra red radiation back at them especially on clear nights.

[Nick]

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.

No, I e showed you why you can't trust the models, and that's basically all you've got. But yet again you totally ignore it, is it cause you've been found out?
Do I need to post it for a third time?