chenille wrote:The atmosphere exchanges radiation with the surface in a dynamic equilibrium. You keep assuming radiation only happens as part of a net transfer of heat, and that is completely wrong; the existence of blackbody radiation only depends on the emitter, not the recipient. So even if both the atmosphere and surface receive most of their energy from the sun, or convection, or wherever, they will still be interchanging radiation. Not appreciating that is a critical failure here, since the idea of global warming is entirely based on what happens when radiation isn't balanced.
Again, edits for clarity.
No, I didn't assume it only happens as part of a net transfer of heat, sorry if I gave that impression.
The idea of global warming is based on the idea that radiation has more of an effect on the atmosphere than convection, and that most of the atmosphere doesn't absorb or emit infrared.
It's also based on the idea that the surface heats the atmosphere almost exclusively.
sam_i_am wrote:You also have to believe that those findings move you toward a greater understanding of the universe, rather than away. IE, you have to believe that knowing more about a thing leads to better modeling a thing. IE, that we do not live in a universe designed in such a way that more knowledge about it reduces our understanding about it.
You have to accept, on blind faith, that the universe is not pulling a fast one on us. This only 'seems' reasonable because it's so absurdly intuitive, but there's no evidence we can produce to demonstrate that it is so. If we live in a universe arranged in such a fashion as to deceive scientific inquiry, everything is pretty much fucked. So we take it on faith that we don't.
Well, no, I can dismiss that as being a useless assumption. There is nothing to gain from the idea that the universe is deceiving us, there is no beneficial results leading from that, it can be dismissed arbitrarily.
I disbelieve most things, I believe very few, as few as I can manage in fact.
Then don't reject science.
Who is rejecting science?
Why does finding issues with a hypothesis equate to rejecting science?
Listen. I don't care if you understand the model better than every single poster in this thread. That would not make you any less wrong. Because, unless there's an actual climatologist present--someone familiar with the research, the formulas, the models, why they're built the way they are--you're a non-expert arguing with non-experts.
Yes, this is why I'm trying to avoid going into deep discussions over model construction, and keeping it to things that non-experts will have no problem with.
So far I have failed spectacularly.
Pretend you're some guy who doesn't understand math arguing with other people who don't understand math. Say you're arguing that 1 does not 0.999... No matter how many clever charts, cute gimmicks, or silly metaphors you pop out of your hat, 1 still equals 0.999.... Even if every other person in the room can't rebuke your claims, you are still wrong. Because the problem ain't that the mathematicians don't know math. The problem is you and your fellow debaters don't.
Why would I pretend that?
I understand many things, I understand enough about basic physics to know that any object raised above absolute zero will absorb and emit electromagnetic radiation.
I understand enough about gases to know that they convect, and I even understand various mechanisms behind this process.
A deep knowledge here isn't needed to see that there is something wrong with the idea that only CO2 absorbs IR enough to matter, and that convection doesn't really matter.
People have been patiently trying to explain the problem to you on the off-chance that your sin isn't willful ignorance, but simple misunderstanding. But you're making it harder and harder to assume that you aren't actually just rejecting the science. So let me put what you are really arguing in the simplest, most clear, most straightforward terms possible:
You are arguing that every climate scientist who argues for climate change--who believes in global warming--is either a shitty scientist or a liar. Since the majority of climate scientists now seem to support some form of global warming, you are arguing that the majority of climate science is filled with either shitty scientists, liars, or some combination thereof. To accept your premise, I must assume that we are either victims of an enormous conspiracy or an enormous fraud.
The majority of climate scientists support the idea that the planet has warmed since the 1850's and that humans are increasing CO2 emissions.
There is nothing wrong with that.
There are a few very vocal individuals who are indeed perpetrating a fraud, anyone who has ever told you that the atmosphere is transparent to IR except for GHG's, anyone who has ever told you that you can ignore convection, anyone who has ever told you that a greenhouse warms up because glass is opaque to infrared, they are all lying or ignorant.
This can be demonstrated, there's a relevant quote by a man who was far smarter than us:
Richard Feynman wrote: It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
I am trying very strongly to get you to back away from this edge. Because that's what you're standing on. Do you know those nutters who argue that 0.999 != 1? Or that evolution is impossible because of math? Or that, hey, they did the math and our entire model of physics is based on a lie? That is the precipice you are currently teetering on.
Please, try and understand me here. I do not think you are an idiot. I am taking it on good faith that you are interested in the science, and interested in understanding the universe, and producing the best models possible. But you are on the threshold of launching yourself into a nonsensical pseudo-scientific conspiracy-laden black hole from which there is absolutely no escape. You are on the threshold of going steve_waterman on our asses, here. The next step is for you to go form your own web-page full of half-cocked climate science you don't understand, debunking a bunch of models you have the 'gist' of with your own mastery of a field that doesn't even really apply.
Yeah, not quite, remember, I'm as anti-crankery as you. There's a reason I'm hard on steve, and it's the same reason I'm hard on anyone who pushes ideas like IR-transparent gases.
When I tell you that science demands humility, this is why. Because unless you are humble--unless you are willing to accept that other people might actually understand what's going on much better than you do--unless you are willing to trust the experts when they say "No, you're wrong"--unless you stop assuming that all knowledge begins and ends with what you can acquire with your own two hands--you are lost in a pit of your own ignorance from which there is absolutely no fucking escape.
Oh, I know that people understand many things better than I do.
So far I haven't seen experts address these issues and say I'm wrong, I've seen lots of non-experts insist that I must be wrong, that I must be uneducated, that I must be anti-science, and so forth.
Again, another relevant quote, and a belief which I possess:
Richard Feynman wrote:Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
Curious that you would use the fact that we're all non-experts arguing with non-experts and attempt to make some sort of point based upon that.
Not quite trying to use that point in that manner, I didn't bring that up, I actually tend to assume others know more than I do, which often leads to mistakes, but I would rather err on the side of you being smarter than I am instead of dumber than I am. It seems like it might be insulting otherwise, but I'm not good at the social stuff.