IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND the relationship between molecules that potentially force the3 storage of additional kinetic energy above ambient input, then I cannot help you.
I do not dispute that, and did NOT intend to imply that. In the course of typing a scientific dissertation on a cell phone however, a transitional thought may have been dropped. Thermodynamics applies to ALL systems. What I intended and if you read carefully further down is that the atmospheres (therefore climates) of the inner planets out to about Mars are governed by solar radiation whereas Jupiter, objects and planets beyond receive so little radiative solar heat energy that their main source of climate dynamics is internal heat shedding. On earth it amounts to about 0.8K of wwT, but on Jupiter it accounts for probably 95% of the planet's climate, and so on the further you get from the sun per the inverse square law.
See 2 above. the "%" is again a minor typo on a cell phone. My apologies that you think a message board is going to be a perfect medium for communication.
I don't actually give a shit if you cannot understand the meaning of RFeK and yes, you could make some equivalencies to joules, but that is not how the IPCC, NASA or NOAA utilize the physics of w/m2 as converted into energy forcing values. When I discuss the topic I try to stick to the conventions and languages that the IPCC and other agencies use. But to explain the energy forcing value of each molecule as a unit term, requires some form of measurement symbol. The introduction of a mathematical expression is not unusual or bad physics. it's common. Now their forcing numbers numbers relate to the energy forcing properties of the molecules mentioned. Each molecule is capable of ON AVERAGE generating an additional kinetic energy potential of 1.00 for water, 1.94 for carbon dioxide and 1.51 for methane within A. Obviously the GHG value of wwT being 16.3K means that of 288.8K, the 16.3K attributed from GHG's must be accounted for in the energy forcing properties of those three molecules. Knowing their ratios within A and knowing their heat forcing energy values, we can easily deduce their properties as climate drivers. It doesn't matter if you cannot find a value symbol called RFeK. The radio frequency forcing of + kinetic energy is forced because of those molecules being present in A and that is what matters according to the IPCC, etc. Sorry you have a problem with the introduction of new mathematical symbols that you ether prefer not to understand and pretend not to understand. Also it is radiative forcing and that was the intended term. I think spell check altered it to "radio" and although radiative is similar, the word radio is probably more common so I did not notice the spell check change. It is Radiative forcing. Yep, I just tried writing it again and it changed it. I had to correct its correction.
The commonly current accepted BB~wwT as measured by NASA is 255.6K. But the actual wwT climate at the earth's surface is 288.8K. Therefore a delta clearly exists. Remember the BB radiation per NASA is strictly the albedo value measured directly from a three dimensional reservoir (roughly 60 miles thick) and not the surface value of wwT. The delta is the difference between the ambient or common temperature that occurs because of the earth's location in the golden zone (orbital mechanics), and other climate forcing mechanisms of which there are mainly three: (1) Thermal heat transferred from surface objects and that is estimated to be about 16.1K of the delta. 0.8K is thought to come from internal heat shedding. while this is a widely accepted value, I think it is low by perhaps a much as 50-100%. But my opinion does not matter, geophysicists have pegged this value at just less than 1K of climate. That leaves the GHG delta and that equals 16.3K assuming the other generally accepted values are correct.
As for you last paragraph of comments, meh. Think what you want. It's a message board not a peer reviewed journal. If you had difficulty following the physics and math then I can't help you. I believe however you can. As for the references they are out there. do your homework. I'm not your slave. Bottom line is in fact that the Laws of Thermodynamics likely preclude the "laboratory analysis that lead to the RFeK assumptive valuations" was probably overstated by the IPCC as well. But I used their numbers and coefficients. Most of the physicists I know discount much of the GHG hypothesis or at best, look at it as a function of mainly water vapor because that accounts for 25/26ths of all potential GHG's. You simply cannot get to CO2 as a main driver of climate. In fact until 100 million years ago, CO2 still lingered in A at around 5,000 ppm or higher. The planet didn't fry then. It isn't frying now.
Three of the last inter-glacial periods were significantly warmer than the present. The current interglacial may be a little cooler because the Milancovic' cycles are at a point where the earth is not receiving quite as much solar energy as in the last two. The solar system is also already passing into the Sagittarius arm of the galaxy and while it is not yet as dense as it will become. it may be having a solar radiation receipt drop. It will continue to drop for the next 6,000 years as the solar system moves closer and into the more dense part of the arm. Ask an astronomer.
We do know from far more recent records (human and biological), the wwT was from 1-3K warmer coming out of the last ice age between 9,000 and 2,000 BC than now. It was 1-2K warmer during the Roman era and it was at least 2K warmer during the mid-evil warm period when Vikings and other Norse, Celts and Saxons grew hay and grains in Greenland and grapes and other mid latitude veggies and fruits in Scotland, England, Ireland and Parts of the lowlands in Northeastern Europe. Right now the current wwT is still below the average wwT since 20,000 BC and its a good 2-3K cooler than three of the last five inter-glacial periods that saw sea levels 3-6 meter higher than the present. We are not presently in any kind of climate crises; far from it. Furthermore, more CO2 would only green up the planet, not fry it out. Every botanist knows that.
I thank you for the conversations, as it has been interesting and I would not have cought the spellcheck error you did without your eyes. I am with others writing a much deeper paper on the subject but we may not be able to publish given the current political powers that be. But the numbers I ahve put herein are out there. It's a deep dive, hundreds of citations and dozens of web sites researched. Most information like variables can be culled from documents published by the IPCC, NASA or t5he NOAA. You just have to look.
I don't actually give a shit if you cannot understand the meaning of RFeK
Okay. I'm going to make up a measurement called CCF (Climate Controlling Factor). It is 10 billion for CO2 and 1 for H2O. Therefore, CO2 controls the climate.
RFeK doesn't exist! I can look up acronyms from my field, electrical engineering, such as AGC or PSRR and get wikipedia articles or other sources describing what they are (Automatic Gain Control and Power Supply Rejection Ratio respectively) and how they relate to the field. When googling "radio frequency energy kinetic potential IPCC" the top hits don't contain "RFeK" or "radio frequency" or anything!
Again it is NOT radio frequency, it is radiative forcing and had you read my response you would have seen that correction and why it came up as radio frequency. I credited you with discovering that false spell check substitution I had not caught.
Oh one more thing, please explain how the. Physics of eK forcing happens to the extent that climate is 16.3°K > than It would be without FHG forcing. Or explain the 16.3°K such that 1/26th of the energy must come from CO2 and Methane, but 25/26ths comes from water? It's an X1+X2+X3 equation where X2 is 1/26th as important as X1 and X3is virtually irrelevant and included in X2. That's the problem you must solve and you must do it so that somehow CO2 is the primary cause of GHG forcing even though it is so nearly irrelevant.
As for the rest of your googling, let me know when you have queried over a thousand sites, papers and peer reviewed journals and figured out the simple math shown. Seriously, I know many scientists that know exactly what I am talking about. Again RFeK is a symbolic representation of a kinetic energy forcing value that the IPCC has assigned to GHG molecules. At NO PLACE 8N IPCC LITERATURE will you find the RFeK acronym assigned to represent that. It is a mathematical symbol. But look up their radiative forcing values. CO2 is 1.94, H2O us 1.O and methane is an irrelevant 1.51. It could be 10 and CH4 would still be irrelevant.
There is zero physics behind your assertion in the first sentence, but I assume it's a TIC comment. Please do your research. When the IPCC set the eK value of water at 1.00 compared to non GHG gases and CO2 at then 2.011. Recently revised after 15 years of study to 1.94, it started saying CO2 is twice as dangerous as H2O. That was 24 years ago, revision down 2 years ago, still somewhat accurate. But that is at the molecular level. Even the recent revision down 2 years ago is their admission their initial concerns at the molecular level were overstated.
Now if you cannot do the research, so be it. Believe whatever the hell you want, but I can tell you the scientists and engineers where I work are convinced CO2 is irrelevant. It might also be that you will have difficulties finding the forcing values of these molecules if google keeps censoring as much as we see in political and other intellectual categories. But I'm OTR and unable to do much more than respond by phone on this tiny message board.
Perhaps you can stipulate this, that if the eK values provided are correct then the math is correct. If you can't do that then I can't help you, believe the bull-shit Marxist political activists are telling you rather than a man that is and works with world class physical scientists and engineers. Our models say you cannot get to any meaningful climate change from a paltry 400 or even 4,000 ppm of CO2. Water is the main driver of GHG eK forcing. Humans have no appreciable impact on atmospheric H2O.
There are dozens of articles on the impact of water vs CO2 but you do not seem to want to find them. I am not going to try and find them an a 4 x6 screen.
We are done.
This is an interesting lack of contextual awareness, you seem to have not even processed my critique. This is reminiscent of when I spoke with Smarterchild on MSN when I was younger - the responses seem related to the prompts but you don't seem to really interpret my messages, merely reply things which, in your case with enough rhetoric and verbiage, seem to be words written by a human but seem to be lacking something.
A brief Turing test: A dog chases cats. A cat chases rats. Do rats chase dogs? If not, what do they? How do humans take advantage of this to catch rats? (not looking for a complicated answer, this is not a trick question, just want to see if you're capable of processing things outside of climate science arguments)
Edit: You edited your comment after I wrote my reply. Interesting, you seem to acknowledge the radio-frequency/radiative-forcing discrepancy but (a) you wrote that with a format which is very unlikely to be spellchecked ((R)adio (F)requency etc.) and (b) trying to search for radiative forcing energy kinetic potential doesn't turn up any hits either. Still very suspicious of you being a bot or troll at this point.
Ok I will answer these queries and that's it:
IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND the relationship between molecules that potentially force the3 storage of additional kinetic energy above ambient input, then I cannot help you.
I do not dispute that, and did NOT intend to imply that. In the course of typing a scientific dissertation on a cell phone however, a transitional thought may have been dropped. Thermodynamics applies to ALL systems. What I intended and if you read carefully further down is that the atmospheres (therefore climates) of the inner planets out to about Mars are governed by solar radiation whereas Jupiter, objects and planets beyond receive so little radiative solar heat energy that their main source of climate dynamics is internal heat shedding. On earth it amounts to about 0.8K of wwT, but on Jupiter it accounts for probably 95% of the planet's climate, and so on the further you get from the sun per the inverse square law.
See 2 above. the "%" is again a minor typo on a cell phone. My apologies that you think a message board is going to be a perfect medium for communication.
I don't actually give a shit if you cannot understand the meaning of RFeK and yes, you could make some equivalencies to joules, but that is not how the IPCC, NASA or NOAA utilize the physics of w/m2 as converted into energy forcing values. When I discuss the topic I try to stick to the conventions and languages that the IPCC and other agencies use. But to explain the energy forcing value of each molecule as a unit term, requires some form of measurement symbol. The introduction of a mathematical expression is not unusual or bad physics. it's common. Now their forcing numbers numbers relate to the energy forcing properties of the molecules mentioned. Each molecule is capable of ON AVERAGE generating an additional kinetic energy potential of 1.00 for water, 1.94 for carbon dioxide and 1.51 for methane within A. Obviously the GHG value of wwT being 16.3K means that of 288.8K, the 16.3K attributed from GHG's must be accounted for in the energy forcing properties of those three molecules. Knowing their ratios within A and knowing their heat forcing energy values, we can easily deduce their properties as climate drivers. It doesn't matter if you cannot find a value symbol called RFeK. The radio frequency forcing of + kinetic energy is forced because of those molecules being present in A and that is what matters according to the IPCC, etc. Sorry you have a problem with the introduction of new mathematical symbols that you ether prefer not to understand and pretend not to understand. Also it is radiative forcing and that was the intended term. I think spell check altered it to "radio" and although radiative is similar, the word radio is probably more common so I did not notice the spell check change. It is Radiative forcing. Yep, I just tried writing it again and it changed it. I had to correct its correction.
The commonly current accepted BB~wwT as measured by NASA is 255.6K. But the actual wwT climate at the earth's surface is 288.8K. Therefore a delta clearly exists. Remember the BB radiation per NASA is strictly the albedo value measured directly from a three dimensional reservoir (roughly 60 miles thick) and not the surface value of wwT. The delta is the difference between the ambient or common temperature that occurs because of the earth's location in the golden zone (orbital mechanics), and other climate forcing mechanisms of which there are mainly three: (1) Thermal heat transferred from surface objects and that is estimated to be about 16.1K of the delta. 0.8K is thought to come from internal heat shedding. while this is a widely accepted value, I think it is low by perhaps a much as 50-100%. But my opinion does not matter, geophysicists have pegged this value at just less than 1K of climate. That leaves the GHG delta and that equals 16.3K assuming the other generally accepted values are correct.
As for you last paragraph of comments, meh. Think what you want. It's a message board not a peer reviewed journal. If you had difficulty following the physics and math then I can't help you. I believe however you can. As for the references they are out there. do your homework. I'm not your slave. Bottom line is in fact that the Laws of Thermodynamics likely preclude the "laboratory analysis that lead to the RFeK assumptive valuations" was probably overstated by the IPCC as well. But I used their numbers and coefficients. Most of the physicists I know discount much of the GHG hypothesis or at best, look at it as a function of mainly water vapor because that accounts for 25/26ths of all potential GHG's. You simply cannot get to CO2 as a main driver of climate. In fact until 100 million years ago, CO2 still lingered in A at around 5,000 ppm or higher. The planet didn't fry then. It isn't frying now.
Three of the last inter-glacial periods were significantly warmer than the present. The current interglacial may be a little cooler because the Milancovic' cycles are at a point where the earth is not receiving quite as much solar energy as in the last two. The solar system is also already passing into the Sagittarius arm of the galaxy and while it is not yet as dense as it will become. it may be having a solar radiation receipt drop. It will continue to drop for the next 6,000 years as the solar system moves closer and into the more dense part of the arm. Ask an astronomer.
We do know from far more recent records (human and biological), the wwT was from 1-3K warmer coming out of the last ice age between 9,000 and 2,000 BC than now. It was 1-2K warmer during the Roman era and it was at least 2K warmer during the mid-evil warm period when Vikings and other Norse, Celts and Saxons grew hay and grains in Greenland and grapes and other mid latitude veggies and fruits in Scotland, England, Ireland and Parts of the lowlands in Northeastern Europe. Right now the current wwT is still below the average wwT since 20,000 BC and its a good 2-3K cooler than three of the last five inter-glacial periods that saw sea levels 3-6 meter higher than the present. We are not presently in any kind of climate crises; far from it. Furthermore, more CO2 would only green up the planet, not fry it out. Every botanist knows that.
I thank you for the conversations, as it has been interesting and I would not have cought the spellcheck error you did without your eyes. I am with others writing a much deeper paper on the subject but we may not be able to publish given the current political powers that be. But the numbers I ahve put herein are out there. It's a deep dive, hundreds of citations and dozens of web sites researched. Most information like variables can be culled from documents published by the IPCC, NASA or t5he NOAA. You just have to look.
Okay. I'm going to make up a measurement called CCF (Climate Controlling Factor). It is 10 billion for CO2 and 1 for H2O. Therefore, CO2 controls the climate.
RFeK doesn't exist! I can look up acronyms from my field, electrical engineering, such as AGC or PSRR and get wikipedia articles or other sources describing what they are (Automatic Gain Control and Power Supply Rejection Ratio respectively) and how they relate to the field. When googling "radio frequency energy kinetic potential IPCC" the top hits don't contain "RFeK" or "radio frequency" or anything!
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter2-1.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-06.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-ts-1.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-04.pdf
Nothing! Similar results for NASA and NOAA too. Nothing on google scholar either! You might as well be quoting numbers out of a Harry Potter book!
Again it is NOT radio frequency, it is radiative forcing and had you read my response you would have seen that correction and why it came up as radio frequency. I credited you with discovering that false spell check substitution I had not caught.
Oh one more thing, please explain how the. Physics of eK forcing happens to the extent that climate is 16.3°K > than It would be without FHG forcing. Or explain the 16.3°K such that 1/26th of the energy must come from CO2 and Methane, but 25/26ths comes from water? It's an X1+X2+X3 equation where X2 is 1/26th as important as X1 and X3is virtually irrelevant and included in X2. That's the problem you must solve and you must do it so that somehow CO2 is the primary cause of GHG forcing even though it is so nearly irrelevant.
As for the rest of your googling, let me know when you have queried over a thousand sites, papers and peer reviewed journals and figured out the simple math shown. Seriously, I know many scientists that know exactly what I am talking about. Again RFeK is a symbolic representation of a kinetic energy forcing value that the IPCC has assigned to GHG molecules. At NO PLACE 8N IPCC LITERATURE will you find the RFeK acronym assigned to represent that. It is a mathematical symbol. But look up their radiative forcing values. CO2 is 1.94, H2O us 1.O and methane is an irrelevant 1.51. It could be 10 and CH4 would still be irrelevant.
There is zero physics behind your assertion in the first sentence, but I assume it's a TIC comment. Please do your research. When the IPCC set the eK value of water at 1.00 compared to non GHG gases and CO2 at then 2.011. Recently revised after 15 years of study to 1.94, it started saying CO2 is twice as dangerous as H2O. That was 24 years ago, revision down 2 years ago, still somewhat accurate. But that is at the molecular level. Even the recent revision down 2 years ago is their admission their initial concerns at the molecular level were overstated.
Now if you cannot do the research, so be it. Believe whatever the hell you want, but I can tell you the scientists and engineers where I work are convinced CO2 is irrelevant. It might also be that you will have difficulties finding the forcing values of these molecules if google keeps censoring as much as we see in political and other intellectual categories. But I'm OTR and unable to do much more than respond by phone on this tiny message board.
Perhaps you can stipulate this, that if the eK values provided are correct then the math is correct. If you can't do that then I can't help you, believe the bull-shit Marxist political activists are telling you rather than a man that is and works with world class physical scientists and engineers. Our models say you cannot get to any meaningful climate change from a paltry 400 or even 4,000 ppm of CO2. Water is the main driver of GHG eK forcing. Humans have no appreciable impact on atmospheric H2O.
There are dozens of articles on the impact of water vs CO2 but you do not seem to want to find them. I am not going to try and find them an a 4 x6 screen. We are done.
This is an interesting lack of contextual awareness, you seem to have not even processed my critique. This is reminiscent of when I spoke with Smarterchild on MSN when I was younger - the responses seem related to the prompts but you don't seem to really interpret my messages, merely reply things which, in your case with enough rhetoric and verbiage, seem to be words written by a human but seem to be lacking something.
A brief Turing test: A dog chases cats. A cat chases rats. Do rats chase dogs? If not, what do they? How do humans take advantage of this to catch rats? (not looking for a complicated answer, this is not a trick question, just want to see if you're capable of processing things outside of climate science arguments)
Edit: You edited your comment after I wrote my reply. Interesting, you seem to acknowledge the radio-frequency/radiative-forcing discrepancy but (a) you wrote that with a format which is very unlikely to be spellchecked ((R)adio (F)requency etc.) and (b) trying to search for radiative forcing energy kinetic potential doesn't turn up any hits either. Still very suspicious of you being a bot or troll at this point.