@booboo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:

@Snowy

> My issue is if there's 100 units in and 100 units out then we should have equilibrium. If there is more energy being absorbed by the atmosphere then there should be less than 100 units out, yes?

Or am I back in the same territory of disputing the base line of those graphs from a week or two back?

We know the greenhouse effect does warm atmospheres. It's how we can survive here and how we wouldn't on Venus.

Would appreciate if you could find that explanation. I would like to know how the experts explain it, because as experts they are quite likely to know what they're talking about.

Careful. You're very close to becoming a climate denier.

@Snowy

Clear as mud? Not sure that I explained it very well.

No one can. Because the back radiation theory makes nil sense. So its best to have a long complex explanation including impossible to understand mathematical calculations that's so complex that no one can understand it (and better still refuse to release the data and calculations so those that can are a bit stumped). And then just say trust the science. Or follow Greta's approach.

@booboo

The correct answer is maybe (science just doesn't know for sure When looking at the past its mostly guesswork. So the science certainly is not settled. As can be seen from wildly inaccurate future predictions).

The sun and only the sun warms the surface. This whole back radiation warming the planet as shown in the chart below is just a (crazy) theory. How can CO2 and water vapor generate TWICE the heat from the sun. NB There is back radiation but the warming from this is so low it almost has no impact. As radiation from a colder object (the freezing atmosphere) can't warm a warmer one (earths surface). Whereas radiation from the sun ...

At times there is less cloud cover (or its higher up) and at other times more (or its lower). So less or more radiation from the sun reaches the surface (and that's the key. The suns radiation that doesn't reach the surface is of no relevance. It either just slightly warms the freezing cold atmosphere or disappears into outer space). So why is there more or less cloud cover that leads to ice age or warm periods. I have read explanations for this but is this correct. Because based on this explanation (quiet or active sun due to pole changes) it will get much colder over the next 20-50 years

@Snowy

The chart is nonsense (yet its supposedly proven "science")

47 is absorbed from the sun yet 116 leaves the surface. Apparently this extra energy created by back radiation. Somehow up there in the freezing cold atmosphere. Water and CO2 (magically) creating twice the energy of the sun

edit. Actually its even worse. Leaving is 116+24+5=145

@Snowy said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:

@Winger It's not leaving as it should. That is the point. Just the same as the blanket effect of clouds at night keep things warmer as terrestrial is kept in. Some might say like a greenhouse.

@Winger said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:

So you can feel the suns radiation warming the body. Returning radiation has almost no warming impact.

Oh, and this is how the sun warms us:
It is infrared radiation that produce the warm feeling on our bodies. Most of the solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and much of what reaches the earth's surface is radiated back into the atmosphere to become heat energy.

So energy from the sun = 100 of which only 47 reaches the surface
Yet energy leaving the earths surface = 116

and back radiation results in TWICE the warming from the sun

The is science today

a

@Snowy said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:

@Winger Yes, terrestrial radiation is different from solar. Wavelengths are hugely different and trapped longwave terrestrial causes warming. Scientists understand this.

Yet somehow almost like magic this returning radiation that has almost nil warming impact (unlike the sun) results in over twice the warming from the sun (according to the climate scientists). And mankind's very very very minor addition to this impact will almost destroy the planet. unless of course we (or the West workers) send billions overseas to a fund

Even common sense should set the alarm bells ringing.

@Snowy said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:

@Winger said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:

The CC "science" claims it cause TWICE the warming from the sun (that is now almost all due to CO2 only and esp CO2 produced by mankind). So radiation returning from the freezing cold atmosphere somehow magically results in twice the warming from the sun.

That's not too hard to understand is it? If you have an enclosed environment and a heat source then you get increased warming. Hence it being called the "Greenhouse effect". A greenhouse is warmer inside than its surrounds but the sun is the same.

Its not even close to being anything like a greenhouse effect. CO2 doesn't block energy leaving like a greenhouse. CO2 and water vapor supposedly deflects around 8% (the other 92% continues on its way) of radiation and some returns to the earths surface. About a second later.

But its extremely low energy radiation. Not like the suns radiation. That highly charged. So you can feel the suns radiation warming the body. Returning radiation has almost no warming impact. Real scientists know this

@TeWaio said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:

carbon dioxide indisputably contributes to the greenhouse effect.

OK but.

CO2 is a minor contributor to back radiation (called The greenhouse effect). That is radiation leaving the earths surface and about 1 - 2 % returning a second or so later

The key though is how much warming does back radiation cause?

The CC "science" claims it cause TWICE the warming from the sun (that is now almost all due to CO2 only and esp CO2 produced by mankind). So radiation returning from the freezing cold atmosphere somehow magically results in twice the warming from the sun.

And based on this nonsense the Wests economy could be destroyed. And we (the West but not China) send many billions overseas to a fund that no one knows where the money ends up. Thank god Trump is pulling the US out. Hopefully NZ does likewise soon. Use the billion or so that NZ sends overseas to clean up real pollution. Or build housing etc

@Snowy said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:

@Rembrandt said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:

not sure I could take a court as having the expertise to make a fair ruling on that case

Hey welcome to the world. Innocent people get locked up all the time too. If you a have a better idea for a judicial system, go for it. The point is the skeptics lost as they didn't have a valid case to question NIWA.

We all have doubts about some of the science, some of the forecasts, even some of the outcomes as regards to our own circumstance, but denying that it is happening....well...

CC really is a money making end of world religion now. Take out the huge money and it would all disappear pronto.

This religion is based on dodgy 'science' where the people concerned who provide the so called science refuse to release their data and calculations. Or provide an explanation where historical data is adjusted. The group who challenged the adjustments only wanted an explanation. That they never got

So I will stick with the unadjusted records. That shows warming but not much

@antipodean

Heres the NZ case

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/16/new-zealands-niwa-sued-over-climate-data-adjustments/