97% of Climate Science papers show that humans are responsible for global warming.

Yes. I don't believe his combination of ignorance and utter certainty really exists in nature.

 

Nope, you're misunderstanding (again). Back radiation doesn't directly make the surface warmer, it simply slows down the cooling at night. That's what makes the surface warmer.

Once again it depends on the boundary conditions you choose. I explained this all in my previous post, but I guess I'll have to confine my remarks to words with single syllables from now on, so you can understand them. Although I'm beginning to suspect even that won't help.

When the boundary conditions are the planet as a whole, surface temperature isn't in the equation. When the boundary conditions are just the surface, then it does. Simple, isn't it? And all you have to do to understand that is to read my previous post.

See my previous comment. Next time, read for content. Or even better, next time read period.

Gee, you really seem to have a hard time understanding English. Should we try German next time?

Hold on there, pardner. "Natural energy in matter???" Aren't you the same guy who told us with great authority a few posts ago that air "doesn't, can't and won't ever" store heat? So what then is this "natural energy in matter" whereof you speak? It's apparently not heat ... unless you were wrong before.

You said it right here, remember?

And here:

So if the atmosphere doesn't, can't, and won't ever store heat, then it doesn't, can't, and won't ever have heat content. And if a trace gas cannot store heat, then a trace gas has no heat content either. Your words, not mine.

Still waiting for an explanation for what this "inherent energy" is. Apparently it's not heat. Is it electricity? Chemical? Does matter have magic energy fairies? We're all waiting ...

I've given you several examples already (the engine in your car, a jet engine, and a power plant) but another example is a heat pump, such as in an air conditioner or a refrigerator. That uses a gas (typically freon, but it could be any gas) to move heat from one place to another. Which would simply be impossible if gases had no heat content.

So now you've got not one, but four different examples to explain. If you can.

 

why? the exterior of the foam shell that traps millions of air bubbles also acts as a vapour barrier eliminating the need for a separate vapour barrier required with the traditional fiberglass insulation and it penetrates every orifice and does not over pack as fiberglass can...foam is a much better product but also much more expensive...

http://www.gcsescience.com/pen14-cavity-walls.htm

as I posted earlier you'll be the wealthiest man on the planet once you re-educate and enlighten all the worlds HVAC engineers as to the errors of their ways...

 

Whoa, hold on there again, pardner. So now you're talking about "existing entropy" and "entropy added from an outside source", whereas in the previous post you were talking about "existing energy" and "energy added from an outside source".

Could it be that gslack doesn't know the difference between energy and entropy???? Could he be so -- to use a previously used phrase -- incredibly ignorant?

 

how does the common thermos bottle work? air...as I posted earlier I'm no scientist but he's making it much more complicated than it needs to be, there is a lot of science behind the details but it's a simple concept to understand how it works...for me it was grade 6-8 where I learned about thermos bottles...

 

Yeah! That thought had crossed my mind. But then when Watts allows an article like "A view of climate “on the ground” from a reporter who was there at the beginning" to be published, I realize, that yes, the ignorance in the pseudo-scientific community is abundant. (I can't get myself to link to it)
Excerpts:

My Bolds

His knowledge of science is as bad as his grammar!

And the "violation of the second law" has been making the rounds in the deniers sites for years. Scienceofdoom has an informative piece, Do Trenberth and Kiehl understand the First Law of Thermodynamics? on that bit of denial.

 

It is definitely so.

It prevents convective heat transfer.

The only sense in which the air trapped inside foam is not key to its insulation properties would be if the alternative were a foam with vacuum in the cells instead of air. Air is key to foam's thermal insulation properties because compared to any solid or liquid, it is so close to being a vacuum, and therefore conducts heat VERY poorly.

The thermal insulation properties of air are superb, because it is the closest thing to a vacuum that is essentially zero-cost. Thermal conductivity of air is very low because it is so close to being a vacuum -- whose thermal conductivity is zero.

Class dismissed.

 

SO your argument is that trapped air that cannot allow convection (WHICH IS A FORM OF THERMAL TRANSFER), making it a good insulator.. Okay, why not. Now tell me how the atmosphere blocks convection... LOL, see the problem yet? Air inside some other substance which blocks its natural convection and flow, changes the situation doesn't it... Go google another graph..LOL

 

I sure do. In fact, I see several problems:
1. I never said there is no convection in the atmosphere. That's all your own invention.
2. Now you have to show that there IS convection in animal fur. And in closed-cell foam insulation. Because now, you've boxed yourself into saying that convection (and ONLY convection) is what makes air a poor insulator. And since you've said that animal fur and foam are poor insulators, therefore you must also invent convection inside the foam and fur to make it so.
3. And finally, the chart I posted is the conductivity of air without convection. So you're still screwed.

Here's a hint: when you're in a hole, stop digging.

 

Okay, guys tell ya what. Remove all the insulation from your house. Take it all out and tell me if its more efficient that way.. All of your nonsense, and the fact remains that it by itself is a lousy insulator. You guys have come up with all kinds of excuses and none of them not one addresses anything with convection involved. Air moves on its own, trap it in a material, it changes things, leave it alone and it is as bad a thermal insulator as they come. Why? because of convection and the natural reaction of air to heat. it tends move away from heat.

Excuses of animal fur, animal fur allows some air flow, but slows it and allows some water to evaporate off the skin. Why do some desert animals have fur? Well it's cold at night in some places, and very hot in the day, so you need a good thermal insulator and something that allows air to flow through it. Allowing for convection and still maintaining warmth..

Foam insulation, air inside the foam makes the product cheaper. The air doesn't make it a better insulator,the lack of convection does.

Now you guys want to play the semantics excuses fine, but as you may have noticed I said AIR, not air blocked from convection or it's natural movement away from heat. AIR, as it is outside or around you. Now when you guys want to stop taking the semantical and pedantic route of associating natural air in the atmosphere with air trapped in a material blocking convection let me know..

 

Never said you did say it ding dong... What you did was claim air a good insulator and pasted a graph. When I said air we were talking about the atmosphere in general. You and the other came back with semantics excuses regarding air in insulation. Which blocks convection changing the scenario...

Stop lying silly-man, you just got caught trying to make crap up for me again. I said trapped air blocks convection, quit trying to lie now...

SO what? air in it's natural state does allow for convection silly...

Air minus convection a good insulator with some caveats. Too large a body of air trapped, allows for air movement inside the material, that changes the conductive properties of the air inside. Air movement allows the molecules to bump into one another which means more heat transfer inside, and that ruins the insulating properties. Also, moisture trapped inside with the air can change the properties as well. Most air has some water content. Which is why most double pane windows use Argon gas in between the panes. Regular air has some water content.

Now are you done being a pedantic nit-picker or what?

 

Its like I walked into a boot licking club here... You guys always follow one another around like this? LOL

 

So now you're saying trapped air inside foam is the atmosphere in general? Or, perhaps you just can't remember what stupid idea you come up with from one hour to the next?

No you didn't. I said it, here, and MannyD said it, here. We corrected your false impressions. You were wrong, and now you don't have the decency (or the honesty) to admit it.

gslack, meet gslack. It's pretty clear that at least one of you guys is wrong. Let me know when you're done having your argument, and be sure to let me know who wins.

 

What a gracious admission of error.

Perhaps most relevantly by its water vapor content, which condenses out when convection takes it up past the dew point, forming clouds that shade the ground below and reduce the solar heating that drives atmospheric convection.

Oh, yes.

Right: it enables air's naturally powerful thermal insulation property to shine.

<yawn>

 

Okay. So I've conducted some scientific research and observation of my own. And I've reached the conclusion that any such alleged warming is indeed caused by all the hot air emanating from our nation's capital.

And <evoking Mrs. Slocomb>, I am unanimous in that!

 

So what about that other 3%? Have you looked at their argument as well to consider it as an option, or is it all just a conspiracy?

 

The other three percent don't have "an" argument. They have half a dozen half-baked ideas that don't hold water. And yes, I've looked at them. I encourage you to look at them too. You'll find a lot of foggy headedness backed up by precious little real science.

 

Detroit News Editorial, 22 November, 1989

&#8220;Loads of Media Coverage&#8221;

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. &#8230; On the other hand,
we are not just scientists but human beings as well. &#8230; To avert the risk (of potentially disastrous
climate change) we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public imagination. That of
course means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make
simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. &#8230;Each of us has to
decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest.

--Stephen H. Schneider, NOAA climate researcher and author of the book Global Warming (Sierra Club), in an interview in Discover
Magazine, October 1989.

 

You left out "I hope that means being both." Because the interview was from Discover magazine and Discover would not leave out a part to change the meaning, I'm guessing your being dishonest by not quoting the complete quote.

More dishonesty from the Deniers. I'm not at all surprised.

 

The only problem with global warming is that it isn't happening

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

 

Where have we heard that one before?



Beyond which, 93% of global warming goes into ocean heat content, only 2% into the atmosphere. Seen the latest evidence? (Oh wait, how silly of me: you're a denier. Of course you haven't seen the latest evidence. Nor the earliest, for that matter.)

From Balmaseda et. al. 2013:


No slowdown there.

 

and he won't look at that either ...or just not comprehend it...opposition to climate change in the USA is generally not science based, it's political...

 

The data provided by the link I posted is the raw data, not the politically massaged data.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...imate-scientist-admits-no-warming-in-15-years

 

Wow!
First you post a Stephen Schneider quote taken out of context.
Then you link to a Spencer graph. I'm not sure what you think that shows.
Then you link to a David Rose lie.
And then you link to another half-truth, probably because you have no clue what "statistically significant" means.
Batting 0/4 sport. You might want to stop swinging.

 

Unfortunately, by reading Dr. Roy Spencer's politically-centered blog, you have managed to ignore everything Spencer has been saying to the scientific community. Because if you had ever managed to dip your toe into the science, you would know that the UAH product is not "raw data" in any way, shape or form. It is, in fact, the result of a very complex algorithm done on the real raw data. That very complex algorithm has been corrected, and corrected again, and again, and again -- we're up to version 5.5 at this point -- and there is every reason to expect that it will be corrected a few more times too. Dr. Roy even admits on his blog that they've thrown out satellite data -- the actual raw data -- that shows "too much" warming. So much for "raw data".

Having said that, have you actually clicked the link to those results? I invite you to do so, and scroll all the way down to the bottom, where it gives us the "decadal trend", which is .14 for the "globe" column. In other words, you own source is saying that the global temperature trend is .14° C per decade -- upwards.

I also find it hilarious that, in order to prove that you're all about raw data and not about politically massaged data, you post links to a couple of the least-scientific and most-poltically skewed newspapers on the planet. Way to go, Mr. Neutral.