# In Support of the A in AGW



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2016)

OK boys and girls....we are all in agreement that the climate is changing....nothing new there as it is always changing.  The debate here isn't about whether it is changing, but why.  One side says that it is natural variability...the other side says that man is mostly to blame.

The point of contention seems to be the A in AGW.  Anthropogenic...caused by man.  

Alright....I am guessing that we can all agree that the AGW hypothesis is a hypothesis regarding things that happen in the natural, observable, quantifiable world...while parts of the hypothesis make claims regarding the subatomic, the effects of these things claimed to be happening at the sub atomic are supposedly visible here in the observable quantifiable world.

Which leads me to ask a question...a question that I have been asking for decades now and have yet to receive anything like a satisfactory answer.  The warmer side of the debate claims that the science is settled...that consensus exist...that at this point, skeptics are simply deniers who refuse to accept the overwhelming body of evidence that caused the consensus to form in the first place and settled the science.

My question is where is this evidence?  I have been asking for decades to see some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real, observable, measurable quantifiable world that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.  We are after all talking about the climate...it is observable...it is measurable, it is quantifiable...things that effect it are observable, measurable, and quantifiable, therefore, observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the claim that man is altering the global climate should exist. 

My question is....where is it?  If it actually existed, I doubt that there would be anywhere on earth that a skeptic could go to escape from it....It would be readily available to all those who accept the AGW hypothesis to slap down any skeptic who asked for such evidence and yet, I have been asking for decades and to date, no one has stepped forward with it.  Why?

So here is a whole thread purposely created for you to slap me down with the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.  Heap the real evidence upon me....slap me down with it....make me your bitch...do your worst.....I'm asking for it.

My bet, however, is that after much name calling, logical fallacy, and presentment of stuff that you believe to be actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical data taken from out here in the real world there will, in fact, be absolutely no...zero...nada...naught.....zilch.....zip...and in effect, diddly squat that amounts to actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real world in support of the A in AGW which is a hypothesis that is all about the climate....an observable, measurable, quantifiable quantity.

That being said, and soon to be proven, I must ask, if the science is settled, and the consensus exists....there being no observed, measured, quantifiable evidence in support of the A in AGW, exactly what is this science settling consensus based upon?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> OK boys and girls....we are all in agreement that the climate is changing....nothing new there as it is always changing.  The debate here isn't about whether it is changing, but why.  One side says that it is natural variability...the other side says that man is mostly to blame.
> 
> The point of contention seems to be the A in AGW.  Anthropogenic...caused by man.
> 
> ...


the almighty dollar.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > OK boys and girls....we are all in agreement that the climate is changing....nothing new there as it is always changing.  The debate here isn't about whether it is changing, but why.  One side says that it is natural variability...the other side says that man is mostly to blame.
> ...



DING...DING....DING...DING....WE HAVE A WINNER.....Give the man a kewpie doll and a dollar...

Cut right to the chase and hit the nail right on the head....as I have said before, nothing creates consensus and settles arguments faster than a big old bucket full of money.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 20, 2016)

Well lets put some context to your post SSDD..  And a few facts..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000.  Below each is  the rate of warming.






The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..






So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and *even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.*

Just some facts for the record...


----------



## Kosh (Apr 20, 2016)

Well let us see over the past 40 years or so worldwide trillions have been spent on writing papers and proving that man is at fault.

While only a few billon as been dedicated to find out how the climate engine actually works..

Yep it is all about the free government money and the AGW talk circuit where they can make as much as $30,000 per 30 minute lecture..

Yep money!


----------



## Crick (Apr 20, 2016)

The Amazing Case of “Back-Radiation”

The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two

Empirical data gathered in the real world that shows man-made CO2 is warming the planet. 

What a fucking idiot.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 20, 2016)

From my point of view, man MIGHT have an impact. As of today it has yet to be quantified and as I have show above there is no empirical evidence to support it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> The Amazing Case of “Back-Radiation”
> 
> The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two
> 
> ...



And yet empirical evidence says your a wrong...  Oh that's right, you base your opinion on models that have no predictive capabilities.. FAILED MODELS, I might add..


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 20, 2016)

The spectrum below is for the real Sun's output and shows the various absorbers.








Solar spectrum (A) above the atmosphere, (B) near the Earth's surface and (C) the spectrum detectable by the eye, The x-axis is wavelength in microns. The difference between A and B represents the albedo; the fraction of the incoming solar radiation that is reflected to space. No spectrum of that seems to be available, but I'm still trying to find one. According to the K/T diagram the radiation absorbed by the atmosphere amounts to 67 W/m2 with only 10 W/m2 of that absorbed by the stratosphere.



*Carbon Dioxide Infrared Spectrum*

There are several transitions of the CO2 molecule that contribute to its IR spectrum and which are relevant to the understanding of its role in global warming. For an apparently simple triatomic molecule its IR spectrum is quite complex. The relevant transitions are shown in Figure 1.

Barrett Bellamy Climate - Greenhouse gas spectra

*Much more at this site. Yes, Virginia, there are GHGs and they impact the temperature of the atmosphere and oceans, as we are finding out right now.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 20, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The Amazing Case of “Back-Radiation”
> ...


Silly Billy, you are the last person in the world that should speak of failed predictions.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> The spectrum below is for the real Sun's output and shows the various absorbers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 



I love it... You equate potential with 'does' when empirical evidence shows it does not.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 20, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Well lets put some context to your post SSDD..  And a few facts..
> 
> Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000.  Below each is  the rate of warming.
> 
> ...


Silly ass, how does last years point fit? How about Feb, 2016?

*NASA Confirms Earth’s Temperature Reached an Even-More-Terrifying Milestone in February

Update, March 12, 2016*: Data released Saturday from NASA confim that February 2016 was not only the most unusually warm month ever measured globally, at 1.35 degrees Celsius above the long-term average—it was more than 0.2 degrees Celsius warmer than the previously most unusually warm month ever measured: January 2016.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 20, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The spectrum below is for the real Sun's output and shows the various absorbers.
> ...


'Empirical' evidence that you never link to. LOL. All that education, and you don't know how to find a site that would demonstrate your 'empirical' evidence. Amazing.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> The Amazing Case of “Back-Radiation”
> 
> The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two
> 
> ...




First, let me say that it has not gone unnoticed that it took an unusually long time for the first of you warmers to even respond to this post....there we're plenty of views but it took 9 full hours before any attempt was made to provide the requested data.  I hypothesize that you warmers were looking furiously for that legendary mountain of actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence and finding, perhaps at long last that it simply did not exist.

So crick...I suppose it escaped you, or perhaps you didn't know that all of those measurements of back radiation, as is with all measured back radiation were made with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than -80F. There are no observed, measured quantified measurements of back radiation made with an instrument at ambient temperature except in unusual cases where the air above the instrument is warmer than the instrument itself..temperature inversions.   So if your hypothesis was that if you placed an instrument on the ground that was cooler than the atmosphere, you could measure radiation moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument, you would have some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support your hypothesis.  Alas, however, the issue at question here is the A, in AGW.

Just to be sure we aren't overlooking something however, Billy has provided us with a graph showing that the rate of temperature increase from 1900 to 1950 was statistically the same but actually slightly higher than the rate of temperature increase from 1951 to 2000, a period when CO2 was rapidly increasing.  If, in fact, CO2 had the effect you believe, then the rate of warming should be significantly higher.  It isn't.  

Then there is the fact that every ice core ever taken shows warmer periods than the present in the past 14000 years while CO2 was still at "safe" levels...and we have man admitting that his proxy based hockey stick isn't all that he originally claimed it to be.

So sorry crick...you have not provided any observed, measured, quantified, empirical data taken from the real world that supports the A in AGW.  Congratulations, however, on demonstrating beyond question that radiation will move from the warmer atmosphere to a colder instrument in accordance with the prediction made by the 2nd law of thermodynamics....a rousing success and one more accurate prediction which is why it is a natural law and AGW is a piss poor failure of a hypothesis.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> The spectrum below is for the real Sun's output and shows the various absorbers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So rocks....you have provided us with some observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered out here in the natural world that CO2 absorbs IR radiation in a quite narrow spectrum.  You failed to provide the information on the other side of the coin however that CO2 also emits that radiation in a fraction of a nano second....and you have failed to provide anything like observed, measured, quantified empirical evidence collected out here in the natural world that absorption and emission equals warming.  And we still have Billy's graph, from a reputable source based on data gathered out here in the real world showing that the warming rate from 1900 to 1950 is statistically the same as the warming rate from 1950 to 2000....a period when CO2, and its claimed effect on temperature were increasing at a steady, and according to you guys a rapid clip....and we have every ice core ever taken showing warmer periods than today across the globe while CO2 levels were at what you guys call "safe".

So no, rocks...you have not provide any observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW.  

It is interesting, however, to gain some insight into what you guys accept, and believe constitutes observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *NASA Confirms Earth’s Temperature Reached an Even-More-Terrifying Milestone in February
> 
> Update, March 12, 2016*: Data released Saturday from NASA confim that February 2016 was not only the most unusually warm month ever measured globally, at 1.35 degrees Celsius above the long-term average—it was more than 0.2 degrees Celsius warmer than the previously most unusually warm month ever measured: January 2016.*



This is observed, empirical proof of nothing more than the fact that you are an alarmist...any claim of terrifying records based on a month of data is nothing but scaremongering and the fact that it comes from what used to be a respected scientific agency is disgraceful...then there is the fact that that terrifying record amounts to a tiny fraction of a degree of temperature anomaly...not even actual temperature achieved through heavy manipulation and adjustment of the data makes it nothing more than unwarranted hysterics.  

The actual, observed, measured, quantified, empirical data gathered out here in the natural world say that you simply are not correct and as I thought, there appears to be .zero...nada...naught.....zilch.....zip...and in effect, diddly squat that amounts to actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real world in support of the A in AGW which is a hypothesis that is all about the climate....an observable, measurable, quantifiable quantity.

So again, I have to ask...since there is apparently no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A, in AGW, exactly what settled the science, and upon what is this claimed consensus basing its opinion?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> 'Empirical' evidence that you never link to. LOL. All that education, and you don't know how to find a site that would demonstrate your 'empirical' evidence. Amazing.



You think this isn't real?  And questioning it is just a straw man diversion anyway....I never asked for anything other than observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered out in the real world supporting the A in AGW...That graph, in no way answers my request, although it does serve to dispute what you and crick apparently accept and believe is observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW.

And again...it is interesting to see what you guys accept as strong evidence in support of that A in AGW...it goes a long way towards explaining why you have been taken in by this farce so thoroughly....in combination with your political leanings...you never had a chance...had conservatives put forward this laughable hypothesis, you wouldn't have bought it for a second and would, like us skeptics, seen flaws with it as far as your eye could see.  You aren't on board because of any mountain of evidence as this thread clearly proves...you are on board because of your politics.

I asked you guys to slap me down with an overwhelming mountain of hard evidence in support of the A in AGW and this is really the best you can do?  You provided observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered in the real world of something....but nothing in support of the A in AGW....the 2 decade halt in any significant warming while CO2 has made its steady rise should seriously call the hypothesis into question for any thinking person, and these fear mongering claims of terrifying records reached by hundredths of a degree during a single month taken from heavily adjusted records leave anyone in the believer category with precious little credibility.


----------



## Crick (Apr 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> From my point of view, man MIGHT have an impact. As of today it has yet to be quantified and as I have show above there is no empirical evidence to support it.



You've been provided a direct measurement of CO2's back radiation and you say there's no empirical evidence. You need to stop pretending that you're making any attempt whatsoever to have a discussion here and that you have any more qualifications than Crusader Frank, jc456 and the rest of your peers.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > From my point of view, man MIGHT have an impact. As of today it has yet to be quantified and as I have show above there is no empirical evidence to support it.
> ...



I have been shown observed, measured, quantified evidence that radiation will transfer from a warmer atmosphere to an instrument cooled to at least -80F....that is not evidence in support of the A in AGW...it is interesting to see that you apparently believe it is.  There are no observed, measured data, however of energy radiating from a colder sky to an instrument at ambient temperature...and again, the 2 decade pause in any statistically significant warming while CO2 has increased on its merry way should call your beliefs into question....clearly you don't question anything if it comes form a place that is in agreement with your political views.

By the way....energy moving from a warmer atmosphere to an instrument which has been cooled to a very low temperature can hardly be called "back" radiation at all....can it?  Isn't that just standard energy transfer from warm to cool just as the second law predicts....the same can be said for those rare instances where the atmosphere is warmer than the surface....just energy transfer...not "back" radiation at all.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 21, 2016)

Hoooo boy, back to the smart photons again. Oh well................


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> The spectrum below is for the real Sun's output and shows the various absorbers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


again, if you have less LWIR you can't increase your magic back radiation.  you can't have it both ways dude.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Well lets put some context to your post SSDD..  And a few facts..
> ...


so where is all of this warmth?  Do you have information regarding where it was the warmest, cause in Chicago it wasn't.  Again, 2012 was the last warm winter here, and in no way on fking earth was 2016 even close, so please share with us where this extreme warm came from.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Hoooo boy, back to the smart photons again. Oh well................


and you are promoting CO2 as a furnace.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Hoooo boy, back to the smart photons again. Oh well................


The Catch 22 is that SSDD wants scientific empirical evidence, yet when it comes to science he simply dismisses the science as being wrong. He substitutes his own screwy science. 

How can you argue science with one who does not believe in the science?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


>


BillyBob. You quoted this graph once before and it was *never ever *published by NOAA, despite the fraudulant title. It came from http://i857.photobucket.com/albums/ab140/Billy_Bob_photos/GlobaltempChange.jpg. I think you or someone else Photoshopped that Photobucket photo.

Please cite a legitimate NOAA source and not something from your personal bucket of photos.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 21, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Someone who actually gets it..  Bravo SSDD!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 21, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


What I said was,  the data used for the graph came from NOAA..  A failure to read.again...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 21, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hoooo boy, back to the smart photons again. Oh well................
> ...



The second law disproves your position with cold hard observed physical reactionary evidence.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hoooo boy, back to the smart photons again. Oh well................
> ...


well dude, when one tries to talk real science, well it's ignored.  I have asked and yet still hasn't been answered, how is it there can be more warming if LWIR is down?  It's a simple question and one of science.  The science says you need LWIR to be absorbed and if you believe in the magic CO2 pill of back radiation, you need it to radiate back.  If there is less how is it there is more?  hmmmmmm?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 21, 2016)

SSDD said:


> My question is where is this evidence?  I have been asking for decades to see some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real, observable, measurable quantifiable world that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.



And we've given it to you, over and over. You just choose to lie about that.

Stratospheric cooling. Is there a natural explanation for that? No. Hence, "A".

Increase in backradiation. Is there a natural explanation for that? No. Hence, "A".

Decrease in outgoing longwave in GHG bands. Is there a natural explanation for that? No. Hence, "A".


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Hoooo boy, back to the smart photons again. Oh well................



Your attempt at diversion...not mine...the fact remains that cricks observed and measured radiation from the atmosphere were made by an instrument that had been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....one does not need a cooled instrument to measure energy coming in from the sun, why then, if according to the greenhouse hypothesis twice as much energy is coming to the earth from the atmosphere than comes from the sun must one have a cooled instrument in order to measure it....

Aside from that, the prolonged 2 decade period in which warming was statistically insignificant if it existed at all while CO2 continued to rise, calls the CO2 component of warming theory and therefore the A in AGW seriously into question,


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> The Amazing Case of “Back-Radiation”
> 
> The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two
> 
> ...



^ Fucking idiot can't tell the difference between observation and evidence


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > My question is where is this evidence?  I have been asking for decades to see some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real, observable, measurable quantifiable world that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.
> ...


so, the absence of evidence mean it has to man?  hahahahahahahahaahahahahhahaha, see that's the silly I can't ignore.

And you all want to tell us we don't use science.  hahahahahahahahhaa, holy fk.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 21, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Well lets put some context to your post SSDD..  And a few facts..
> ...



Too funny;

Hundredths of a degree are "terrifying" when the paleo records show this is not unusual or anything to be frightened  of.  Then you use the 38 year satellite record as proof of AGW without context.. Show me where MAN caused this warmth and how you ruled out latent heat from the recent El Niño.. Even the idiots over at SKS know that 99.5% of this pencil whipped number you claim as rise is not man caused and is natural variation.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hoooo boy, back to the smart photons again. Oh well................
> ...



I believe in science...I do not believe in hoaxes...we skeptics have been told that there exists a overwhelming body of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW...this thread clearly proves that no such vast body of actual observed measured evidence gathered out in the real world exists and those bits that have been provided are strong evidence of something but that something is not the A in the AGW hypothesis.

As I have stated all along, there is no actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the A in AGW.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hoooo boy, back to the smart photons again. Oh well................
> ...


and agreed to by the IPCC AR5 report, BTW.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Funny, they were asked to provide some of this claimed overwhelming body of observational evidence supporting the A in AGW and what they have presented is just pitiful and it seems that they are going to spend more time trying to divert from their failure by complaining about graphs which you were never asked to provide in the first place and have nothing to do with proving the A in AGW.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 21, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Your attempt at diversion...not mine...the fact remains that cricks observed and measured radiation from the atmosphere were made by an instrument that had been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....one does not need a cooled instrument to measure energy coming in from the sun, why then, if according to the greenhouse hypothesis twice as much energy is coming to the earth from the atmosphere than comes from the sun must one have a cooled instrument in order to measure it....



As we've pointed out to you before, you can buy thermal imagers right now which measure the backradiation and which don't need to be cooled.

That is, your stupid theory is now contradicted by the free market. Which sort of makes you a socialist.

And as you know your stupid crap has been debunked and you keep posting it anyways, it also makes you a liar, so there's no reason to speak with you.



> Aside from that, the prolonged 2 decade period in which warming was statistically insignificant if it existed at all while CO2 continued to rise, calls the CO2 component of warming theory and therefore the A in AGW seriously into question,



No, lying about statistics won't help you either.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Your attempt at diversion...not mine...the fact remains that cricks observed and measured radiation from the atmosphere were made by an instrument that had been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....one does not need a cooled instrument to measure energy coming in from the sun, why then, if according to the greenhouse hypothesis twice as much energy is coming to the earth from the atmosphere than comes from the sun must one have a cooled instrument in order to measure it....
> ...


post a link with one of these devices.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > My question is where is this evidence?  I have been asking for decades to see some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real, observable, measurable quantifiable world that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.
> ...



No you haven't hairball and this thread is hard observable evidence of that...For all the bluster of a supposed overwhelming body of evidence in support of the A in AGW, what has been provided is completely underwhelming and doesn't support the A at all...



mamooth said:


> Stratospheric cooling. Is there a natural explanation for that? No. Hence, "A".



Is CO2 emitted from internal combustion engines the only factor within the climate that can cause stratospheric cooling?  Has the stratosphere never cooled before? You are offering up a vague correlation based on a shaky hypothesis...not actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical data in support of the A in AGW...but thanks for showing what passes for such evidence in your mind.



mamooth said:


> Increase in backradiation. Is there a natural explanation for that? No. Hence, "A".



If radiation is detected from the atmosphere with an instrument that is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere is it back radiation at all?  There are no observed, measured, quantified data demonstrating backradiation from the atmosphere gathered with an instrument at ambient temperature.  One need not cool an instrument in order to detect, measure, and quantify energy incoming from the sun and according to AGW, more than twice as much energy comes to the surface of the earth from the atmosphere in the form of back radiation than comes from the sun...why then, would one need an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere in order to detect twice as much energy as is incoming from the sun?



mamooth said:


> Decrease in outgoing longwave in GHG bands. Is there a natural explanation for that? No. Hence, "A".



There is no decrease in OLR...in fact, it is increasing contrary to the predictions of the AGW hypothesis...yet another failure..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 21, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Hoooo boy, back to the smart photons again. Oh well................



Show me where these photons with low output due to their cooler temp will affect a warmer atmosphere.  And just how does water inhibit this through absorption and convection.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Your attempt at diversion...not mine...the fact remains that cricks observed and measured radiation from the atmosphere were made by an instrument that had been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....one does not need a cooled instrument to measure energy coming in from the sun, why then, if according to the greenhouse hypothesis twice as much energy is coming to the earth from the atmosphere than comes from the sun must one have a cooled instrument in order to measure it....
> ...



And as I have pointed out to you, they are measuring changes within internal thermopiles...not actual incoming or outgoing radiation...fooling yourself with instrumentation is not evidence of anything other than you don't understand the instrument.

Sorry hairball, but for all the bluster you warmers have spewed regarding the overwhelming body of evidence supporting the A in AGW, what your buds have presented, as you have presented nothing doesn't rise to the level of evidence of anything other than that radiation can be measured and quantified....that never was in question...there is no evidence to support the A in AGW.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hoooo boy, back to the smart photons again. Oh well................
> ...



Damned interesting thread....isn't it.  For all their bluster about evidence this and evidence that, it is clear that they have nothing supporting the A in AGW....plenty of evidence for things that were never in question, but nothing....nada...zip...zero to support that all important A in AGW....pure politics and money...never was anything else.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 21, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



They use terms that have little meaning to real scientists and are designed to confuse the general public. "Back Radiation" is really a known fact of all matter emitting IR at their temperature. I once started a thread showing how the terminology was paramount in the deception. This thread actually proves that hypothesis.  Its actually very enlightening.



> One of the main problems, which causes the debate to cease, is the use of generic terms which include subsets of other items which may or may not be root causes.
> 
> Lets take the Term "Global Warming". The term insinuates that the earth is warming but what it does not do is determine what the individual or cumulative causes are for it. For the purposes of this thread this term is not acceptable as it fails to identify whether the cause in warming is attributed to man or attributed to natural process.
> 
> ...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 21, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > My question is where is this evidence?  I have been asking for decades to see some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real, observable, measurable quantifiable world that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.
> ...



Actually stratospheric cooling is explained in the increased amount of convection and how it releases heat when the droplets form. This region also comes with some heat loss as the re-nucleated molecules absorbed heat from that layer.  Again Observed Evidence trumps your hype..

The increase in OLWIR shows this fact.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 21, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



I posted the real world data in post 4 of this thread showing the premise you gave as false..  Yet you ignore it, why?

Your premise must have results that are observable and defineable in the real world.. Models are fantasy land and not empirical evidence of any kind.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


he did here:



Billy_Bob said:


> Well lets put some context to your post SSDD..  And a few facts..
> 
> Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000.  Below each is  the rate of warming.
> 
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 21, 2016)

According to the AGWCult, evidence is a trick relied upon by the DENIERS!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> According to the AGWCult, evidence is a trick relied upon by the DENIERS!


yep, we made it all disappear.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 21, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> According to the AGWCult, evidence is a trick relied upon by the DENIERS!


LOL...

Real evidence is a denier!!!!  Only made up model crap is acceptable...


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


and?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


That is a flat-out lie. That graph did not come from NOAA and you know it. It was photoshopped. Either by you or someone else.

Look at the link for the graph below. This came directly from NOAA. It shows a temperature rise that is quite different from the one you posted.





http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009.gif


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


you know, reading comprehension is very important at times.  He stated the data in the graph was from NOAA not the graph.  wow, he even reposted it for ya.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 21, 2016)

Interesting how the old atmospheric "Hot Spot" never appears as the modeling says it should.





Source

Without amplification the A in AGW fails. The question in my mind is why are we seeing just 1/2 of warming that is expected in lab experiments? That does not even include non-CO2 causes to boot.  So the warming we have seen is far below what the LOG effect of CO2 in the lab has shown.

Water vapor and clouds are the answer as we  have seen the increasing outgoing LWIR from the stratosphere. Water vapor is a negative forcing at our current temperature.  Dr Roy Spencer hypothesizes that during ice ages this flips to positive but at warmer temps it allows LWIR to escape despite retardation by CO2 in the lower atmosphere.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 21, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



The data was taken from NOAA before the magic Karl Et Al made massive adjustments to it.. I noticed you cling to adjusted, modeled and molested crap.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> The data was taken from NOAA before the magic Karl Et Al made massive adjustments to it.. I noticed you cling to adjusted, modeled and molested crap.


Prove it. What is the NOAA source. Photobucket is not a reliable source.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Look at the link for the graph below. This came directly from NOAA. It shows a temperature rise that is quite different from the one you posted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That graph has some troubling problems of its own and the fact that it came from NOAA makes it all the more troubling.  In 1989 NOAA said that they had observed a decline in temperature between the years of 1921 and 1979...that decline is not evident in your graph...why not?  They also stated that most of the warming since 1881 till that date (1989) had taken place prior to 1919.  Your graph doesn't reflect that trend either..why? The discrepancy between what your graph says and what NOAA said in 1989 is the result of a systematic raising of modern temperatures and an equally systematic lowering of temperatures further in the past....your graph reflects that elegantly.

Can you offer up a rational, scientifically valid reason for such drastic changes in the temperature record?  Do you really believe that altering the record to that degree has made it more accurate?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> The data was taken from NOAA before the magic Karl Et Al made massive adjustments to it.. I noticed you cling to adjusted, modeled and molested crap.



Your own graph shows evidence of quite a bit of adjustment as well...refer to the newspaper clipping from 1989 in the post above....in 1989 NOAA clearly stated that they saw a cooling trend between the years of 1921 and 1979...that trend had already been adjusted out of existence by the time the data for your graph was used...They also said that most of the warming since 1882 till that date (1989) had taken place prior to 1919....another trend that had already been adjusted out of existence by the time the data was used to create your graph...

There is little doubt that the temperature record has been manipulated and altered out of all reason and bears little, if any resemblance to the actual historical record if it even still exists.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 21, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The data was taken from NOAA before the magic Karl Et Al made massive adjustments to it.. I noticed you cling to adjusted, modeled and molested crap.
> ...


There have been over 90 alterations to the historical record in the last 15 years by NOAA, NASA, and GISS, that we know about... Its been molested so badly it is no longer credible.

In my work, I have to rely on data sets taken from other papers, previously published, simply becasue the base line is so irreparably damaged.  Data sets from just 15 years ago are totally unrecognizable in comparison to today's fantasy published by NOAA.

Take the graph Wei Wei is having a hard time with, that was data taken in 2012 from NOAA's own published data set. Just try to retrieve that data set today and you will find that it has been removed from the site. Only the heavily adjusted and molested data is available today. 

Thank God for reputable scientists who have downloaded and kept these data sets monthly. I have been trying to get a few to publish the gradual changes done over the years. I was totally flabbergasted that there had been 90 significant changes to the record in the last 15 years...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



It takes a lot of adjusting to maintain the narrative when mother nature is making you and your failed hypothesis her bitch year after year...what else can they do?....admit that they were wrong...


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 21, 2016)

SSDD said:


> That graph has some troubling problems of its own and the fact that it came from NOAA makes it all the more troubling. In 1989 NOAA said that they had observed a decline in temperature between the years of 1921 and 1979...that decline is not evident in your graph...why not? They also stated that most of the warming since 1881 till that date (1989) had taken place prior to 1919. Your graph doesn't reflect that trend either..why? The discrepancy between what your graph says and what NOAA said in 1989 is the result of a systematic raising of modern temperatures and an equally systematic lowering of temperatures further in the past....your graph reflects that elegantly.
> 
> Can you offer up a rational, scientifically valid reason for such drastic changes in the temperature record? Do you really believe that altering the record to that degree has made it more accurate?


I have no idea. The graph you are referring to is 27 years old. Yes I know you believe that the newer graph is fraud.  You will have to look to NOAA for the answer of what has changed in the science in the last 27 years.

Furthermore the graph Billy posted goes up to 2012. The last decades of that graph differ wildly from NOAA's later graph.I can hardly see that Billy's graph, which predated the current NOAA data by almost 3 decades can have any bearing on the last three decades of what Billy's photobucket graph showed. Obviously the last 27 years did not exist back in 1989.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 21, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Is CO2 emitted from internal combustion engines the only factor within the climate that can cause stratospheric cooling?



Any greenhouse gases could do it. So is that your admission that greenhouse gases are causing the observed global warming?



> Has the stratosphere never cooled before



No.

Because I say so, the same standard you use, so you can't argue with it.

Your "natural cycles" nonsense can't explain the directly observed data, therefore your natural cycles nonsense is demonstrably wrong. It's that simple. Sucks to be you, but the evidence is what is it, and it says you're wrong.



> If radiation is detected from the atmosphere with an instrument that is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere is it back radiation at all?



No cooling required, so you do yet another faceplant into a cow patty here. The contortions you go into to deny the basic evidence are quite comical. If your kook theory wasn't so laughable, you wouldn't need to twist and evade like that.



> There is no decrease in OLR...in fact, it is increasing contrary to the predictions of the AGW hypothesis...yet another failure..



Your unsourced mystery graph isn't evidence of anything except your propensity for fraud. Honest people don't post unsourced mystery graphs and refuse to identify their exact source. You do. That's because you're a fraud, and all the non-fraudulent data directly contradicts your claims.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 21, 2016)

SSDD said:


> And as I have pointed out to you, they are measuring changes within internal thermopiles...not actual incoming or outgoing radiation...fooling yourself with instrumentation is not evidence of anything other than you don't understand the instrument.



That's right, the electronics companies are deliberately defrauding their customers with instruments that don't work, and none of their customers have figured that out. Only a supergenius like you understands the RealTruth.

Your conspiracy theory constantly keeps getting more stupid and more desperate.

So, does anybody else want to jump on SSDD's stupid wagon, and claim that all modern thermal imaging technology is fraudulent? Jump right on in if you agree with him.


----------



## Crick (Apr 21, 2016)

But speaking of predictions, yours doesn't seem to have panned out. The 3 month plot at lasp.colorado.edu seems to be doing a u-turn after having gotten all the way down to 1360.2. Ice Age Imminent...*NOT*


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Any greenhouse gases could do it. So is that your admission that greenhouse gases are causing the observed global warming?



And you believe that only greenhouse gasses could cause it?  Got any actual, observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support that claim or is it just more talking out of your ass as usual..



> Has the stratosphere never cooled before



No.

Because I say so, the same standard you use, so you can't argue with it.[/quote]

Again...no observed, measured, quantified evidence to support that claim either...in fact, you are just further proving the original premise of this thread...thanks.



mamooth said:


> Your "natural cycles" nonsense can't explain the directly observed data, therefore your natural cycles nonsense is demonstrably wrong. It's that simple. Sucks to be you, but the evidence is what is it, and it says you're wrong.



Really?  that's odd since there is nothing happening within the climate today that is even approaching the boundaries of natural variability....



mamooth said:


> No cooling required, so you do yet another faceplant into a cow patty here. The contortions you go into to deny the basic evidence are quite comical. If your kook theory wasn't so laughable, you wouldn't need to twist and evade like that.



And yet, all so called measurements of back radiation are made with instruments cooled to at least -80 F....



> There is no decrease in OLR...in fact, it is increasing contrary to the predictions of the AGW hypothesis...yet another failure..



Your unsourced mystery graph isn't evidence of anything except your propensity for fraud. Honest people don't post unsourced mystery graphs and refuse to identify their exact source. You do. That's because you're a fraud, and all the non-fraudulent data directly contradicts your claims.[/QUOTE]

Sorry hairball, the graphs are real...sorry you can't handle the truth...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And as I have pointed out to you, they are measuring changes within internal thermopiles...not actual incoming or outgoing radiation...fooling yourself with instrumentation is not evidence of anything other than you don't understand the instrument.
> ...




Of course they aren't....they state quite clearly how their instruments work...you idiots just don't read the documentation...


And thanks for fulfilling my original prediction....lots of bluster...name calling, logical fallacy, but not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the A in AGW.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 21, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> I have no idea. The graph you are referring to is 27 years old. Yes I know you believe that the newer graph is fraud.  You will have to look to NOAA for the answer of what has changed in the science in the last 27 years.



I believe what NOAA said back in 1989, before this became a political issue...I believe what they said when keeping the data was just their job and didn't have hundreds of billions of dollars in grant money riding on it...It is clear that the data have been altered to a completely unrecognizable state and it is equally clear that the alteration has been done for money and political gain.

It is interesting that you guys don't question why the data have been altered to such a degree even when presented with clear evidence of tampering and no rational scientifically valid reasons for altering data from 50 years ago and more.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 21, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Of course they aren't....they state quite clearly how their instruments work...you idiots just don't read the documentation...



So now you say the instruments work. You point them at the sky, they give visual output corresponding to the backradiation striking the sensors. Then you say they don't measure backradiation.

In contrast, the sane people point out that they're very obviously measuring backradiation.

You're wrong, hilariously so, and now you're obviously just flailing about desperately so you don't have to admit it. I hope you're not under the impression that anyone thinks otherwise.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 21, 2016)

SSDD said:


> And you believe that only greenhouse gasses could cause it?  Got any actual, observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support that claim or is it just more talking out of your ass as usual..



No, that's not how science works.

"Wrong" would be your "Can you absolutely prove some magical mystery theory isn't the real cause, huh, can you? If you can't, I win!" nonsense.

"Right" would be you formulating a theory that explains the stratospheric cooling. 

If you want to replace the prevailing theory that explains the observed data, you have to come up with a theory that explains the observed data _better_. So get to work.



> Sorry hairball, the graphs are real...sorry you can't handle the truth...



If the graphs represent real data, then simply tell us exactly where you got them from.

If you won't, it doesn't look good for you. Honest people don't try to hide their data sources. You do, constantly. That has everyone concluding that you're engaging in deliberate fraud again.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 21, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


And you can state the the sun rises in the West as many times as you want. It will never rise in the West. And the vast majority of scientists in this and every other nation state that AGW is real. And they have the evidence. Now who to believe, some silly ass on an anonymous message board, or people that have spent decades researching in their field?


----------



## Olde Europe (Apr 22, 2016)

SSDD said:


> So here is a whole thread purposely created for you to slap me down with the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis. Heap the real evidence upon me....slap me down with it....make me your bitch...do your worst.....I'm asking for it.



That's funny.  No, really.  The sad thing is, you're not a debater.  You're just behaving like a spoiled brat banging the spoon on the kitchen table, whining that his cereal be fed to him, and now, goddamnit, while also spitting out everything he's being fed.

Otherwise your "contributions" (let's be charitable) on this thread amount to evidence for your gross misunderstanding of the science, evidence for your having subscribed to every bit of climate hoaxterism, and insults meted out to whoever endeavored to lend you a helping hand.

On the other hand, the record is a clear as it gets, from rising greenhouse gas concentrations since the pre-industrial era (no other causes for the earth's carbon budget to get out of balance) to concomitant rising temperatures (no other sources of climate forcing pointing into the same direction).  On the other side of this we have the climate hoaxters, Exxon, Koch et. al., seeking to protect their bottom line, and their political minions and assorted useful idiots carrying their water.  That's not a competition, and the result is not a "debate".

In conclusion I'd say, this thread has it's rightful place in the Flame Zone, since it has next to nothing to do with climate science, or the environment, for that matter.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And you believe that only greenhouse gasses could cause it?  Got any actual, observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support that claim or is it just more talking out of your ass as usual..
> ...



Of course it is...Since nothing is happening in the climate  that hasn't happened before without the aid of man and the internal combustion engine...you must prove that this time it is due to man.....otherwise, natural variation is the most obvious explanation for what we are seeing.  The only thing new is that you are suggesting an entirely new reason for it...some clear compelling evidence in support of your hypothesis is required to overcome the natural variability argument...and as you can see, there is neither clear, nor compelling evidence in support of the A in AGW.



mamooth said:


> If you want to replace the prevailing theory that explains the observed data, you have to come up with a theory that explains the observed data _better_. So get to work.



Natural variability as your claim that the stratosphere has never cooled  (and there has been precious little cooling since the late 1990's) before is just fabricated bullshit on your part...of course it has cooled...and warmed before without the aid of man or the internal combustion engine....PROVE that this time it is different.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> And you can state the the sun rises in the West as many times as you want. It will never rise in the West. And the vast majority of scientists in this and every other nation state that AGW is real. And they have the evidence. Now who to believe, some silly ass on an anonymous message board, or people that have spent decades researching in their field?



So you say...and so you have said...I suggest that you take a look back through this thread and see how much evidence you can't produce...and what you have produced certainly supports something but not the A in AGW....nothing is happening in the climate that is outside the bounds of natural variability and in order to claim that this time, somehow man is to blame, you are going to have to come up with a very compelling body of actual observed, measured, quantified empirical evidence to overcome the natural variability argument...  You have always and continue to claim that there exists this vast body of evidence but clearly neither you, nor any other warmer on this board can produce it....is it secret?  If it is, on what do you base your belief?  

For all the billions spend over the decades, one would expect a hell of a lot more than the piss poor bits of non supportive science you and crick have provided...Where is it?  Bring it on, or admit that it just doesn't exist and that you have been bamboozled into thinking that the science is settled...Hell rocks, there is still a lively debate over Einsteins's theory of relativity and even after all these years it has not experienced a single predictive failure....the AGW hypothesis has a string of predictive failures going back for decades and not a shred of actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical data in support of the A...and yet you guys claim that the science is settled because consensus exists?....money buys consensus very quickly...throw out a few hundred billion to physicists if they can reach consensus on the theory of relativity and see how quickly it happens.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 22, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> That's funny.  No, really.  The sad thing is, you're not a debater.  You're just behaving like a spoiled brat banging the spoon on the kitchen table, whining that his cereal be fed to him, and now, goddamnit, while also spitting out everything he's being fed.



No...the sad thing is that this was the best response you could come up with...why bother?  Clearly you can't produce even a single bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW, so you feel that you must lash out because it makes you feel bad to have it spoken in public that you are the victim of a scam.



Olde Europe said:


> Otherwise your "contributions" (let's be charitable) on this thread amount to evidence for your gross misunderstanding of the science, evidence for your having subscribed to every bit of climate hoaxterism, and insults meted out to whoever endeavored to lend you a helping hand.



More talk and still nothing like observed, measured, quantified empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW.



Olde Europe said:


> On the other hand, the record is a clear as it gets, from rising greenhouse gas concentrations since the pre-industrial era (no other causes for the earth's carbon budget to get out of balance) to concomitant rising temperatures (no other sources of climate forcing pointing into the same direction).  On the other side of this we have the climate hoaxters, Exxon, Koch et. al., seeking to protect their bottom line, and their political minions and assorted useful idiots carrying their water.  That's not a competition, and the result is not a "debate".



Except that you ignore the fact that for most of earth's history the average mean global temperature has been about 8 degrees warmer than the present...and that just prior to the beginning of the ice age that the earth is still clawing its way out of, the atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm...and prior to that an ice age began when atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 2000ppm, and prior to that an ice age started when atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 3000ppm and before that an ice age began when atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 4000ppm.

Your claims of the "carbon budget" being out of balance are abject ignorance when for most of earth's history atmospheric CO2 has been orders of magnitude higher than the present levels...  The fact is that nothing in the climate today is even coming close to the boundaries of natural variability and your claims that man is causing it "this time" stink of politics and nothing more...the abject lack of anything like observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from the real world in support of the A in AGW make my case for me...



Olde Europe said:


> In conclusion I'd say, this thread has it's rightful place in the Flame Zone, since it has next to nothing to do with climate science, or the environment, for that matter.



Since you don't seem to be able to produce a single bit of the requested evidence in support of the all important A in AGW...I don't doubt that you would rather see the thread disappear than watch your fellow warmers languish in their inability to provide even a little bit of real evidence.


----------



## Olde Europe (Apr 22, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Except that you ignore the fact that for most of earth's history the average mean global temperature has been about 8 degrees warmer than the present...and that just prior to the beginning of the ice age that the earth is still clawing its way out of, the atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm...and prior to that an ice age began when atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 2000ppm, and prior to that an ice age started when atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 3000ppm and before that an ice age began when atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 4000ppm.



Again, having demanded evidence you hastily spit out what you requested, and, without further ado, threw in irrelevancies, as if past CO2 levels had anything to do with our current eco system, adapted to quite different temperatures, along with other morsels the climate hoaxters fed you, with very little connection to scientifically proven fact.  Also, almost compulsively, you leave behind a trail of evidence for the fact that you are just hysterically blabbing, without thought and deliberation:



SSDD said:


> Your claims of the "carbon budget" being out of balance are abject ignorance when for most of earth's history atmospheric CO2 has been *orders of magnitude higher* than the present levels...



So, how many "orders of magnitude higher", exactly, is 4000 compared to 400ppm?  Yeah, you're doing your moniker proud.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Well if you want to announce record highs, the only way to get there is to manipulate the data. Cause the actual temperatures aren't getting there.  And how can one get more funding unless one shows warmest evah records?  I'm just saying.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 22, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Of course they aren't....they state quite clearly how their instruments work...you idiots just don't read the documentation...
> ...


hahahhhahahahaahahahaha you point it at the sky and badda boom there is back radiation.  funny stuff. Let's see the output of the wave that is being detected.  anyone can make a digital thermometer but back radiation?  Nope.  Sorry, there isn't any evidence that the little number popping up on the screen is anything but a number.  Your faith is commendable, but that is all it is, faith.  There is no back radiation being detected.  I challenge them to show the waveform and frequency on a scope and let's see it. 

Here is a link for some education:

Infrared Radiation

excerpt:
"But there are issues in conducting infrared astronomy research. First of all, heat is a primary emitter of infrared radiation. So a orbiting observatory has to shield the detectors from any heat sources, and also cool the detectors using liquid helium. As the instrument itself begins to heat up during use (like your home computer gets warm while you are using it) the infrared signature can interfere with the data acquisition.

This makes doing infrared astronomy difficult as well as limiting. Since infrared observatories are mostly in space, their operational lifetimes are determined by the amount of liquid helium that is onboard. As that supply runs out, the detector will no longer be able to discern the extraterrestrial sources of infrared radiation from that of the observatory itself. At this point, if there is no mechanism for re-fueling the satellite, it is decommissioned and will eventually crash back down to Earth. (Or in the case of observatories that are not bound in orbit around Earth, they will simply continue to orbit along their designated path.)"


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 22, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Is CO2 emitted from internal combustion engines the only factor within the climate that can cause stratospheric cooling?
> ...


The Snageltooth shows its abject ignorance of the convective cycle and the earths own  cyclical changes.  

Just wow... The Stratosphere has never cooled before snageltooth?  what a moron..


----------



## mamooth (Apr 22, 2016)

SSDD said:


> .otherwise, natural variation is the most obvious explanation for what we are seeing.



Except for that teentsy little issue of how the data contradicts the 'natural variation' theory.

"Natural variation" requires stratospheric warming go along with global warming. Instead, cooling. Your theory, destroyed.

So, are you ever going to address the issue of your ongoing fraud, and tell us where your magical mystery graphs came from?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Except that you ignore the fact that for most of earth's history the average mean global temperature has been about 8 degrees warmer than the present...and that just prior to the beginning of the ice age that the earth is still clawing its way out of, the atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm...and prior to that an ice age began when atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 2000ppm, and prior to that an ice age started when atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 3000ppm and before that an ice age began when atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 4000ppm.
> ...



You think that some different sort of physics is at work today?  You think CO2 somehow absorbed and emitted differently in the past?  You guys are claiming that are claiming that 40ppm of additional CO2 is wreaking havoc on the climate and will eventually cause runaway warming via magic multipliers but when atmospheric O2 was orders of magnitude more than the present, we saw no such run away warming and in fact ice ages began with atmospheric CO2 well over 1000ppm multiple times.



Olde Europe said:


> So, how many "orders of magnitude higher", exactly, is 4000 compared to 400ppm?  Yeah, you're doing your moniker proud.



Hey, if you look real hard, you might find some spelling and punctuation errors while you are busy not bringing forward any observed, measured, quantified data collected from the real world supporting the A in AGW...  Boy, you really showed me


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .otherwise, natural variation is the most obvious explanation for what we are seeing.
> ...



You poor idiot woman...output from failing computer models is not data....it is fiction. Haven't you noticed the abject lack of DATA of the observed, measured, quantified sort that supports the A in AGW?  HELLO...that's what this thread is about...if you have data that shows that anything whatsoever is happening in the climate right now that it is outside of natural variability, by all means, bring it forward...I started a whole thread so you goobers could post it and so far....nothing at all.  Lets see it hairball...actual observed, measured, quantified data that shows that the climate we are experiencing now is outside the bounds of natural variability.



mamooth said:


> "Natural variation" requires stratospheric warming go along with global warming. Instead, cooling. Your theory,


destroyed.

You have some proof of that claim?...some actual proof?  It is my understanding that a season of very efficient thunderstorms could accomplish some cooling in the stratosphere which, by the way, there has been precious little of since the early 1990's...Volcanic aerosols could also hypothetically cause stratospheric cooling....slight changes in solar output could result in stratospheric cooling...hell, the scientists from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory say that wide spread use of hydrogen fuel cells could result in stratospheric cooling... The fact is, hairball that we don't know enough to have a handle on stratospheric cooling...we don't know all of the reasons the stratosphere might cool yet so it is nothing more than alarmism to claim a particular cause at this time for reasons that are no better than political expediency.

The he idea that CO2 or other trace gasses could cause stratospheric cooling still remains in the realm of hypothesis...it certainly has not been proven...so you offer up an unproven hypothesis to support your unproven hypothesis?...typical....classic hairball.



mamooth said:


> So, are you ever going to address the issue of your ongoing fraud, and tell us where your magical mystery graphs came from?



Already given them to you but since they don't support your dogma...you will continue to complain about them...But here are some more for you...the fact that OLR is increasing is no secret and you seem to be the only warmer arguing the fact...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 23, 2016)

The basic AGW premise is, CO2 will cause some warming. That warming will cause an increase of water vapor in the mid troposphere and force latent heat back to the earths surface creating a runaway loop of increasing heat.

Lets take it a part piece by piece.

CO2 does retard heat loss in the lower atmosphere by absorbing and then re-emiting photons in the very low Infrared band. This slows the LWIR release of heat ascending in the atmospheric coulomb.

If this was the only avenue of heat release the premise might hold water, but water is not acting like they thought.

Water vapor is not retarded by CO2. The photons slowed by CO2 are absorbed by water in the lower atmosphere and that warmer water begins to rise, unabated by CO2. This water vapor rises until its heat is released to space and water vapor re-nucleates into a droplet, falling back to earth. Some of this water attaches to heat in the mid troposphere and stratosphere causing further cooling of the upper layers.

Outgoing LWIR (long wave infrared radiation) is released at much the same rate as it was during lower levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and has resulted in only half of the warming that is expected by CO2 alone, this doesn't assign anything to other avenues of warming or cooling yet, further negating temperature rise that can be attributed to CO2.

Water vapor is acting as a NEGATIVE forcing in our atmosphere, not a positive one as predicted by AGW models. This is one of the main reasons that every single model fails empirical, real world, review and fail to project or predict anything correctly.




Dr J Christy

One of the main premises of AGW is a mid-tropospheric hot spot, as shown by the failed modeling. This has never manifested itself in the real world as show by Dr David Evans, Dr Roy Spencer and every satellite data set.




Dr D Evans

The absence of the hot spot indicates that water vapor is not trapping heat like the hypothesis dictates and no runaway build up is occurring. It is, infact,doing exactly the opposite of the hypothesis as outgoing LWIR measurements show at TOA (Top Of Atmosphere).

CO2 is not driving anything by empirical, real world, evidence and calling it pollution is really an uniformed and unscientific position. Without water amplification there is no anthroprogenic cause and regulating CO2 for any reason is pure political horse manure.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2016)

Billy Bob said:
			
		

> CO2 does retard heat loss in the lower atmosphere by absorbing and then re-emiting photons in the very low Infrared band. This slows the LWIR release of heat ascending in the atmospheric coulomb.



Got to say Billy, that if CO2 in fact, did that, a tropospheric hot spot would be inevitable...and there  would be decreasing outgoing LW at the top of the atmosphere as CO2 increased...it isn't happening.

CO2 doesn't act like a blanket....CO2 behaves like holes in a blanket...Radiative cooling is faster than conductive cooling.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 does retard heat loss in the lower atmosphere by absorbing and then re-emiting photons in the very low Infrared band. This slows the LWIR release of heat ascending in the atmospheric coulomb.
> ...



You miss the point. The physics is sound and proven in the lab. Its the fact that water vapor is not "collecting" in the mid troposphere. The amount of convective cooling increase is massive compared to the minute amount of retarding and offsets the radiative slow down.

The big hole in AGW is trapping of water vapor. CO2 cant do that and the atmosphere is using other avenues of heat escape to balance. Outgoing LWIR at TOA  is relatively unchanged due to this.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2016)

I just don't buy that it retards heat escape in the atmosphere... as the amount of CO2 increases in the atmosphere..the amount of OLR at the TOA seems to be increasing...this would suggest that CO2 aids in transporting heat to the upper atmosphere...It makes no sense at all to suggest that a radiative gas would inhibit the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.

By the way...I sent you an IM a few minutes ago...did you get it?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> I just don't buy that it retards heat escape in the atmosphere... as the amount of CO2 increases in the atmosphere..the amount of OLR at the TOA seems to be increasing...this would suggest that CO2 aids in transporting heat to the upper atmosphere...It makes no sense at all to suggest that a radiative gas would inhibit the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.
> 
> By the way...I sent you an IM a few minutes ago...did you get it?



It simply slows the process up the dry column.  Think of it like placing a filter in a water pipe. Without the filter the pressure is evenly dispersed and there is no restriction. CO2 acts like a filter slowing some and allowing others to pass unrestricted. The pressure will then increase before the filter due to this minute restriction.

This pressure must be released and it seeks out the path of least resistance. If there were no other outlet for it, the pressure would remain and increase over time. (this is the AGW hypothesis) But along comes water vapor which absorbs some of the heat and then rises relieving the pressures through convection. Its roughly a 2-1 ratio convection vs radiative release, but they both are radiative at TOA.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't buy that it retards heat escape in the atmosphere... as the amount of CO2 increases in the atmosphere..the amount of OLR at the TOA seems to be increasing...this would suggest that CO2 aids in transporting heat to the upper atmosphere...It makes no sense at all to suggest that a radiative gas would inhibit the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.
> ...



The path of least resistance is a straight path from ground to space....your way only works if you believe that the energy escaping from the ground is taking some other route...I don't buy back scatter, back radiation, back. anything...I see CO2 as a facilitator for moving energy on in a manner that is much faster than conduction...IE..holes in the blanket rather than being some part of the fabric of the blanket....the atmosphere would be warmer if there were no radiative gasses and conduction were the only way of moving heat out


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Physics shows that all matter radiates in all directions at every temperature. Warmer objects will over power the cooler ones (1st law) and cooler ones do not impact the warmer ones (second law).. AGW violates the second law.

The path of least resistance is not always a straight line.  Basic electronics should teach that well.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Physics shows that all matter radiates in all directions at every temperature. Warmer objects will over power the cooler ones (1st law) and cooler ones do not impact the warmer ones (second law).. AGW violates the second law.



I believe the correct phrase is that physics "says" that matter radiated in all directions at every temperature...in a vacuum...there has never been a measurement made at ambient temperature of energy moving from cool to warm out in the observable world.



Billy_Bob said:


> The path of least resistance is not always a straight line.  Basic electronics should teach that well.



If we were talking about water cutting through clay vs rock I would agree with you but not on energy moving through the atmosphere...conduction is the slow route to the TOA....radiation is the fast track....


----------



## mamooth (Apr 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> You have some proof of that claim?...some actual proof?



We're back again to that thing where you fail at understanding how science works, and have a meltdown because nobody accepts your weird illogical PC version of science.

Again, your "YOU HAVEN'T ELIMINATED EVERY LAST POSSIBILITY THAT MY MAGICAL CLAIMS COULD BE CORRECT!" is not science.

If you've got a theory that shows how naturally-caused warming can go along with the directly observed stratospheric cooling, write it up. Demonstrate how it explains the observed data better than the current theories. If you can do that, your theory will be accepted.

If you won't, all you've got is pouty cult flapyap, and everyone will just keep laughing at you.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You have some proof of that claim?...some actual proof?
> ...



Simply pulling claims out of your ass is not science hairball....and you do it a great deal.  If you are going to claim that every time the earth has warmed, the stratosphere has warmed you are going to need some proof....and we both know that there is none....hell, you already claimed that only greenhouse gasses could cause stratospheric cooling and there are several things that can cause such cooling besides trace gasses in the atmosphere...the idea that greenhouse gasses can cool the atmosphere is hypothesis...not proven..



mamooth said:


> Again, your "YOU HAVEN'T ELIMINATED EVERY LAST POSSIBILITY THAT MY MAGICAL CLAIMS COULD BE CORRECT!" is not science.



I didn't ask you to rebut anything I have said...what I asked for was observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable world in support of the A in AGW....since you have none...you are merely attempting to derail the conversation and distract from the fact that you guys can't produce any.


----------



## Crick (Apr 23, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> The basic AGW premise is, CO2 will cause some warming. That warming will cause an increase of water vapor in the mid troposphere and force latent heat back to the earths surface creating a runaway loop of increasing heat.
> 
> Lets take it a part piece by piece.
> 
> ...


what a waste of time you are.

1) Define "atmospheric coulomb"
2) There is almost NO loss of atmospheric thermal energy to space as THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO WATER VAPOR IN THE STRATOSPHERE Sir Fucking Atmospheric Physicist Lying Sack of Shit.
3) You go downhill from there.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> what a waste of time you are.
> 
> 1) Define "atmospheric coulomb"
> 2) There is almost NO loss of atmospheric thermal energy to space as THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO WATER VAPOR IN THE STRATOSPHERE Sir Fucking Atmospheric Physicist Lying Sack of Shit.
> 3) You go downhill from there.



Good for you..you found a misspelled word...got a special victory dance for that?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The basic AGW premise is, CO2 will cause some warming. That warming will cause an increase of water vapor in the mid troposphere and force latent heat back to the earths surface creating a runaway loop of increasing heat.
> ...



A waste of time is answering you or hairball.  Your talking points is all you have and your good with that..You cant even describe the basic physical concept of AGW..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 23, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You have some proof of that claim?...some actual proof?
> ...



You really are clueless of scientific process.. AGW is not a theroy and has not been elevated to this level as it fails empirical evidence and real world review.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 23, 2016)

Ive been reading through the threads today and not one of the alarmist here have a clue what the basic hypothesis of Anthroprogenic Global Warming is.

They dont have a dam clue!

How can you defend that which you dont have even the basic knowledge of?

Its Stunning, the shear ignorance of the alarmists here.


----------



## Olde Europe (Apr 23, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .otherwise, natural variation is the most obvious explanation for what we are seeing.
> ...



As best I know, if we saw global warming due to higher solar irradiation, we'd see stratospheric warming.  If we experienced warming due to, say, higher "natural" CO2 emissions, volcanoes or such, we'd see stratospheric cooling just as we're seeing right now.

The better point probably would be that "natural variation" isn't a magic claim that brings about its own evidence so as to be true and proven at all times, but climate altered due to natural variation follows some sort of forcing that ought to be detectable.  There is no relevant natural forcing at the time, certainly none that would cause warming. And that's why that non-theory - rather a brazen assertion - of "natural variation" is patently ridiculous, a mere distraction and a fraud.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 23, 2016)

Gavin Schmidt is trying like hell to hide the divergence and failures of the models.  A post by Steve McIntyre shows the deceptions they are trying to push today.. Its an excellent read..

Gavin Schmidt and Reference Period “Trickery”


----------



## PK1 (Apr 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> My question is where is this evidence?
> ...
> Heap the real evidence upon me....slap me down with it....make me your bitch...


---
You made yourself a bitch.
Even if you really wanted to see the evidence, you would not know what to do with it.
It's clear you don't understand science. so how can you understand the scientific evidence?

GW is a fact
The scientific evidence supporting the greenhouse theory is so strong that all the top scientific academies in the world agree.
If you really wanted to see the evidence, you can start with the Working Group I contribution to IPCC's AR5, which provides a comprehensive assessment of the physical science basis of climate change.

However, as a non-scientist, your eyes & brain will glaze.
So what's the point, other than showing everyone what a bitch you are?
.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 23, 2016)

PK1 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > My question is where is this evidence?
> ...


LOL...

AR5 is a political pile of modeled crap..

Empirical real world evidence shows AGW a failed hypothesis.  I dont suppose you would like to post up the relevant sections of AR5 which show the empirical evidence (model outputs are not empirical evidence of any kind) and are not fantasy modeling which has failed empirical review and have no predictive powers.  Come on and post up the evidence you say is soooo devastating.


----------



## IanC (Apr 24, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...





W - you seem to be as bad as crick at reading graphs.  did you read the title of the graph? did you read the caption? do you understand what the graph is illustrating?

the graph itself states where it is from, the address of the NOAA data it used (although undoubtedly out of date now), and the source of the CO2 data.

to make things simpler for you in the future, I will give you an easy tip. if you are using Chrome simply right click the graph and select 'search google for this image'



what is the graph showing????

20 year temperature changes. eg the first point is the difference between Jan 1880 and Jan 1900. repeat until the end of the data. the blue line is the five year average. it of course doesnt start til 1905, and my one complaint about this graph is that they extrapolated the last five years with a straight line ending with an arrow. they should have just cut it off at 2007.

this type of graph is somewhat odd, although I have seen it before, most recently in the study of UHI in Japan. it emphasizes the change in trend without completely losing temperature context like a first derivative acceleration graph would.


----------



## Crick (Apr 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > what a waste of time you are.
> ...



I don't see a correction? What word did you intend to be there? Ah... Column. Tough one.

However, as expected, you ignored the point that almost NONE of the atmosphere's thermal energy radiates to space from water vapor. It radiates from the extremely dry stratosphere. Remember? They told you that in Atmospheric Physics for Dummies 101R.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> As best I know,



And that pretty much sums up the state of climate science....we are just beginning to scratch the surface in knowing what drives the climate and warmers are already claiming that the debate is settled...it isn't even close...  

When what you are observing out in the real world is well within the bounds of natural variability, and you want to go claiming an unnatural cause, you better have some damned compelling evidence gathered from the real world...and you better be able to thoroughly explain, and prove natural variation and show that what you are observing simply isn't...climate science hasn't come close to that bar yet and probably won't for some time....or at least till they scrap the failed AGW hypothesis and work on something that takes a closer look at natural variability and uncertainty.


 i


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2016)

PK1 said:


> GW is a fact



GW is a fact...and GC is a fact....what I am asking for is evidence supporting the A in AGW...that means, in case you don't know the anthropogenic (that means man made) component of AGW.


----------



## PK1 (Apr 24, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


---
Hey BBob, why don't you simply look for it if you're really interested?
I already mentioned the IPCC-AR5's *WG1* report has the evidence you clowns are asking for.
Just download the full WG1 report (375mb) and read it.
Let us know which of the 9,000+ cited scientific publications you dispute. 
.


----------



## PK1 (Apr 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > GW is a fact
> ...


---
See my response to your ignorant buddy BBob.
.


----------



## elektra (Apr 24, 2016)

Is the Climate changing, no, it is the same as it was yesterday, and the day before, the same as the last century, changing weather is what the climate is, it is never the same, the average always changes, a giant ball in space bombarded with radiation from the sun and idiots believe they can take the temperature at one time, one day, and that years from now at that spot in space, which has long since passed, the temperature should be exactly the same, and if not, the climate has changed?

Still funnier, is representing this point in time as a picture, a dot on a graph.

Until we can accurately measure the temperature of the earth in an exact time and point in space, in relation to an exact output of the sun's energy, all your arguments are irrelevant.


----------



## Olde Europe (Apr 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> And that pretty much sums up the state of climate science....we are just beginning to scratch the surface in knowing what drives the climate and warmers are already claiming that the debate is settled...it isn't even close...
> 
> When what you are observing out in the real world is well within the bounds of natural variability, and you want to go claiming an unnatural cause, you better have some damned compelling evidence gathered from the real world...and you better be able to thoroughly explain, and prove natural variation and show that what you are observing simply isn't...climate science hasn't come close to that bar yet and probably won't for some time....or at least till they scrap the failed AGW hypothesis and work on something that takes a closer look at natural variability and uncertainty.



Stunning, really.  Frankly, your scientific semi-literacy is of such a magnitude, it is topped by nothing except by your vastly overblown certainty.

Of course, if you want to claim "natural variability", you better have "some damned compelling evidence gathered from the real world" when otherwise the only significantly changing parameters are increased GHG concentrations due to human activity.

Moreover, climate change and its causes present a horribly complex phenomenon that involves a causal chain (or rather multiple, interacting causal chains) which ranges from GHG emissions due to human activity, to increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, to complex interaction with the earth's energy budget and irradiation / albedo, to even more complex causes for changing weather patterns and ice melting etc. etc. etc.  Note, too, that causal chains cannot be directly observed, and neither can they be measured.  All that can be done is take the most accurate measurements we can (GHGs, temperatures, cloud formation and duration, ice volume and extent, sea levels, etc. etc. etc.), and reconstruct past data as best we can, and bind these together into a theory that involves physics, chemistry, and biology, in order to try to explain what we are seeing.  Climate science is at a state where GW and its human causation is well-established science, while uncertainties exist, to various degrees, in vast areas over the exact causal chains, second- and third-order effects, and future developments.

But hey, pounding your chest and pontificating over things you haven't begun to understand certainly seems to be fun to you, so knock yourself out.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2016)

PK1 said:


> ---
> Hey BBob, why don't you simply look for it if you're really interested?
> I already mentioned the IPCC-AR5's *WG1* report has the evidence you clowns are asking for.
> Just download the full WG1 report (375mb) and read it.
> ...



Sorry guy, but it isn't...I have been asking for a very long time for those who believe it is to cut and paste anything from that steaming pile of pseudoscience to bring forward anything like actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...and still no one, including yourself can seem to find any...

For all your talk...the clear fact is that you can't find it either.....not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2016)

PK1 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...




Saw it...sorry, it isn't there regardless of your claims...do feel free to bring forward what passes for observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence taken from out here in the real, observable, measurable, quantifiable world...It was interesting to see what passes for evidence supporting the A in AGW in cricks and rocks mind...it will be equally interesting to see what passes for it in yours...it is a sure bet that it won't be anything like actual evidence though...but by all means, step on up and as they say...put up or shut up.


----------



## PK1 (Apr 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > ---
> ...


---
Apparently, you did not read the evidence indicated or you did not understand it.
Thousands of scientists throughout the WORLD concur with that evidence.
Obviously, you're not a scientist and are bitching out of your league.
Go get a lollipop and read first grade stories, like in the Bible; more your speed.
.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 24, 2016)

PK1 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...


I dont do appeals to authority and models accepted as fact. AR5- WG1 is based on theoretical MODELING not empirical evidence. Ive read it, and I am not impressed with these fools who cite fantasy modeling, which has no predictive power and fails empirical review claiming it as undeniable fact. It is pure conjecture and that is the sad state of what passes for climate science at the UN.

Please feel free to post up the empirical, quantifiable, observed evidence, where and when it was obtained, and what it's error bounds are..


----------



## PK1 (Apr 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


---
Saw it?
You are a fucking liar.
.


----------



## PK1 (Apr 24, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


---
You are a climate scientist?
Who cares what *you* think!
You are a nobody in science.
Why don't you cite a credible authority who disputes the evidence presented in that WG1 AR5 report ...
.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 24, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And that pretty much sums up the state of climate science....we are just beginning to scratch the surface in knowing what drives the climate and warmers are already claiming that the debate is settled...it isn't even close...
> ...



" climate change and its causes present a horribly complex phenomenon that involves a causal chain (or rather multiple, interacting causal chains) "

A chain your theoretical models have failed horribly to emulate, so badly that they fail by 100% within 30 days.. ALL OF THEM! and they are so far outside 2 standard deviations by 2 years that the failure of your authorities understanding of the climate system is stunning...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 24, 2016)

PK1 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...


LOL...

Keep believing that.....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > GW is a fact
> ...



I find it rather interesting how the alarmists claim that 'Global Warming' can only be man made and omit the A.  Its part of the disinformation campaign to cloud and hide the need to link the anthroprogenic portion to the natural one..  Sad that they must use deception to promote their agenda.


----------



## PK1 (Apr 24, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Sad that they must use deception to promote their agenda.


---
Agenda? That's what you're doing; trying to confuse the gullible public to promote your greedy political agenda.

The scientists are doing scientific work, which you cannot dispute from a scientific view.
.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 24, 2016)

PK1 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Sad that they must use deception to promote their agenda.
> ...


I am using verifiable facts.. repeatable science..

If you think for one minuet that fantasy modeling is accurate, I want some of what your smoking... You claim you have science as your root but you produce none.. Why is that?

I have produced simple, empirical, verifiable, observed evidence of the hypothesis's failure.  You counter with failed modeling... Its pretty obvious who is blowing smoke..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


You really are a moron....
LWIR is released when the water molecules re-nucleate at which point the stratosphere fails to stop it from being released to space as the space between molecules can not inhibit it.  But then again your projecting....


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> Moreover, climate change and its causes present a horribly complex phenomenon that involves a causal chain (or rather multiple, interacting causal chains) which ranges from GHG emissions due to human activity, to increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, to complex interaction with the earth's energy budget and irradiation / albedo, to even more complex causes for changing weather patterns and ice melting etc. etc. etc.



And on and on and round and round it goes and still not the first bit of actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...



Olde Europe said:


> Note, too, that causal chains cannot be directly observed, and neither can they be measured.



Of course they can...meteorologists observe, measure, and quantify numerous causal chains every day which they then run through models and are able to reasonably accurately predict what will happen as much as a couple of days out...and that is the extent of our ability to understand the climate.  



Olde Europe said:


> All that can be done is take the most accurate measurements we can (GHGs, temperatures, cloud formation and duration, ice volume and extent, sea levels, etc. etc. etc.), and reconstruct past data as best we can, and bind these together into a theory that involves physics, chemistry, and biology, in order to try to explain what we are seeing.



And the models are failing miserably...which tells any thinking person that the hypothesis upon which the models are built is wrong.




Olde Europe said:


> Climate science is at a state where GW and its human causation is well-established science,



BULLSHIT....maybe you haven't noticed but the first bit of actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW has yet to be posted in this thread.....I believe that you believe such evidence exists...but the fact that you can't produce it says otherwise.




Olde Europe said:


> But hey, pounding your chest and pontificating over things you haven't begun to understand certainly seems to be fun to you, so knock yourself out.



You seem to be the one doing the chest pounding....claiming settled science....well established causation...etc, etc, etc while not being able to produce any evidence at all in support of your claims.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2016)

PK1 said:


> ---
> Apparently, you did not read the evidence indicated or you did not understand it.
> Thousands of scientists throughout the WORLD concur with that evidence.
> Obviously, you're not a scientist and are bitching out of your league.
> ...



And still not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered out in the observable, measurable, quantifiable world in support of the A in AGW regardless of your endless claims that it exists....if you can find it then bring it on...I suspect that the reason you aren't bringing anything forward is that you fear the embarrassment of presenting what passes for actual evidence in your mind...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> I dont do appeals to authority and models accepted as fact. AR5- WG1 is based on theoretical MODELING not empirical evidence. Ive read it, and I am not impressed with these fools who cite fantasy modeling, which has no predictive power and fails empirical review claiming it as undeniable fact. It is pure conjecture and that is the sad state of what passes for climate science at the UN.
> 
> Please feel free to post up the empirical, quantifiable, observed evidence, where and when it was obtained, and what it's error bounds are..



I think most of them are afraid to post what passes their muster as actual evidence in support of their claims...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2016)

PK1 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...



So feel free to bring forward any actual observed, measured, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable world in support of the A in AGW....I say that you are a liar claiming it to be there...prove me wrong....

PREDICTION....no real evidence will be forthcoming...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2016)

PK1 said:


> You are a climate scientist?
> Who cares what *you* think!
> You are a nobody in science.
> Why don't you cite a credible authority who disputes the evidence presented in that WG1 AR5 report ...
> .



And still no observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...how unsurprising is that?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...




It has been their argument all along....simply assuming that GW = AGW.....with absolutely no evidence in support of the A.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2016)

PK1 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Sad that they must use deception to promote their agenda.
> ...



So bring some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable world that supports the A in AGW...or simply admit that what climate science is calling science really isn't.


----------



## PK1 (Apr 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


---
As i mentioned in the AGW Question thread ...
You obviously have not read the IPPC AR5 WG1 report; it provides/cites all sorts of _*"actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence"*_ you refer to, but i'm sure those 1,500 pages with citations to *9,000+ scientific publications* would strain your 1st grade brain.
Yeah, keep making a fool of yourself along with your trolling science-clown buddies.
.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Billy, the only thing it did do is support our claim.  it states:  That is observed and it backs our story.  I laugh when they try and use it.

"In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example,_* the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012*_; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, _*is smaller *_than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}"


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > ---
> ...


SSDD, but there is observed data in there and it backs our story:

"In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, _*the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.*_05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño,_* is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012;*_ 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}"


----------



## PK1 (Apr 25, 2016)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...


---
Since you're repeating your stupidity from the AGW Question thread, you require another slap toward reality:

You intially claimed "no warming" for 15 years, then you cite a statement that says the *rate* of warming was less than previous period due to natural variability.
Do you understand there was *continued warming?*?

Your attempt at cherry-picking science text (for non-science policy makers) is pathetic. Does not help your denier-cult cause. Here's the text from that dumbed down text you passed up:

_The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C3, over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist. The *total increase* between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–2012 period *is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C*, based on the single longest dataset available4 (see Figure SPM.1). {2.4}

• For the longest period when calculation of regional trends is sufficiently complete (1901 to 2012), almost *the entire globe has experienced surface warming* (see Figure SPM.1). {2.4}_
.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 25, 2016)

PK1 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


And yet no quantification of what is natural variation and what is man made.  0.84 divided by 16  = 0.0525 deg C per decade.. and then the level of CO2 kept rising for one and half decades where the rate of temperature rise decreased to 0.015 deg C... This proves that CO2 is not doing squat.  If CO2 were acting like the hypothesis predicts we should have never dropped below 0.05 increase.

Basic math and reasoning should lay A in its grave..


----------



## SSDD (Apr 26, 2016)

PK1 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...



Yeah..you mentioned it as have all your warmer wacko brothers and sisters since it was published...and yet, neither you nor any of your wacko cult seem to be able to bring even one piece of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence from all those 9,000+ papers that you claim support the A in AGW...the data does not exist and claiming that it exists in droves while not being able to produce the first bit doesn't lend you much credibility...

The guy claiming a thing exists while simultaneously not being able to produce it is the one who looks like a fool...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2016)

So I guess that there will be no observed, measured, quantified, empirical data gathered from out here in the observable, measurable quantifiable, empirical world that support the A in AGW....

Looking back to the OP we have, as predicted had name calling, logical fallacy, and presentment of stuff that you believe to be actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical data taken from out here in the real world but there was, in fact, be absolutely no...zero...nada...naught.....zilch.....zip...and in effect, diddly squat that amounts to actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real world in support of the A in AGW which is a hypothesis that is all about the climate....an observable, measurable, quantifiable quantity.

Thanks for your participation and for bearing out my hypothesis...


----------



## Crick (Apr 27, 2016)

There's tons.  You've been shown it repeatedly.  You continue to lie at every turn and refuse to accept what the world's scientists - of every stripe - recognize as evidence supporting AGW.  Everyone here knows that.  There simply is no question of the validity of AGW any more.  The only people who actually believe there is no evidence are the folks in tin hats worried about contrails and satellites.  You have become the fringe of the fringe.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> absolutely no...zero...nada...naught.....zilch.....zip...and in effect, diddly squat that amounts to actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real world


You are absolutely correct for people like you who don't believe in modern physics, and who block their ears, shut their eyes and shout la-la-la-la at that science countless times.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> There's tons.  You've been shown it repeatedly.  You continue to lie at every turn and refuse to accept what the world's scientists - of every stripe - recognize as evidence supporting AGW.  Everyone here knows that.  There simply is no question of the validity of AGW any more.  The only people who actually believe there is no evidence are the folks in tin hats worried about contrails and satellites.  You have become the fringe of the fringe.




And yet, you can't produce any of it...thanks...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > absolutely no...zero...nada...naught.....zilch.....zip...and in effect, diddly squat that amounts to actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real world
> ...




Modern physics which means not observed, measured, or quantified......right... We are talking about the observable, measurable, quantifiable world...why do you suppose that there is no observed, measured, quantified data to support such an important hypothesis that demands so much money?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


So that's your argument. You don't believe in modern physics. Therefore you don't believe in any of it's ramifications. If you are that anti-science, you have made no point in your OP and you have made no argument one way or another.


----------



## Crick (Apr 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > There's tons.  You've been shown it repeatedly.  You continue to lie at every turn and refuse to accept what the world's scientists - of every stripe - recognize as evidence supporting AGW.  Everyone here knows that.  There simply is no question of the validity of AGW any more.  The only people who actually believe there is no evidence are the folks in tin hats worried about contrails and satellites.  You have become the fringe of the fringe.
> ...




I can and have produced reams of it.  You have seen it.  You have read it.  You lie about it.  Your choice.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 27, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Modern Physics equates models as empirical evidence yet when they are tested they fail.. How can you place your trust in something that has shown no basis in reality and then force people to give up their freedoms due to your fantasy's?  

What you describe bears no resemblance to science.. You can keep your modern (common core) physics becasue its a failure..


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 27, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Modern Physics equates models as empirical evidence yet when they are tested they fail.. How can you place your trust in something that has shown no basis in reality and then force people to give up their freedoms due to your fantasy's?
> 
> What you describe bears no resemblance to science.. You can keep your modern (common core) physics becasue its a failure..


So you also don't believe in quantum mechanics, relativity, quarks, leptons, equilibrium conditions of radiation ...?

You say, "when they are tested they fail."  The fact is that relativistic quantum electrodynamics was tested and consistently agrees with theoretical models to one part per billion in accuracy. You sure are a disciple of SSDD.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> So that's your argument. You don't believe in modern physics. Therefore you don't believe in any of it's ramifications. If you are that anti-science, you have made no point in your OP and you have made no argument one way or another.



I haven't made an argument on this thread...and I haven't asked for argument...I have stated that there is zero observed, measured, quantified data in support of the A in AGW....zero actual observed evidence from the observable, measurable, quantifiable world regarding a hypothesis that deals entirely with the observable, measurable, quantifiable world.....and my statement has been proven true as evidenced by the lack of anything even remotely resembling observed, measured quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...


----------



## Crick (Apr 28, 2016)

And the work of the IPCC's Working Group I, "The Physical Science Basis"?  Let's hear your excuse one more time.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Not the first bit crick...I suppose you might believe that you have, but then that's why you have been taken in by the scam....measurements of the emission of various gasses made with instruments cooled to temperatures far below that of the atmosphere are evidence of nothing other than that you can measure emitted radiation from a thing if you cool your receiving instrument to a temperature lower than that of the emitter....hardly evidence supporting the A in AGW...and rocks evidence that greenhouse gasses absorb was only half the evidence as he failed to mention that they also emit what they absorb and that does not even begin to prove that absorption and emission equals warming...much less support the A in AGW...

As I said, my original premise is correct and you have never posted a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the A in AGW...none of you have.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Modern Physics equates models as empirical evidence yet when they are tested they fail.. How can you place your trust in something that has shown no basis in reality and then force people to give up their freedoms due to your fantasy's?
> ...



Do you really believe that our description of quantum mechanics in 100 years, or 200 years will bear any resemblance to the place holding stories we tell today in an attempt to explain what we, at this point, aren't even close to understanding?  Do you think it will even be as close to the modern explanation as the aether hypothesis was?

And none of that even begins to address my OP statement anyway...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> And the work of the IPCC's Working Group I, "The Physical Science Basis"?  Let's hear your excuse one more time.



No excuse....I simply made a statement...you are the one who is all excuses and lies all the time as evidenced by your inability to produce even the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...the fact that the title is "the physical science basis" is laughable considering that you can't bring a single bit of actual physical evidence forward in support of that A.

I can't help but notice that once again, you make claims that you fail abjectly to back up...if the observed, measured, quantified evidence is there, then bring some of it here...what you have offered up so far is not evidence in support of the A in AGW...perhaps it is that you wouldn't know actual observed, measured, quantified evidence if it bit you in the ass....maybe you accept anything you are given as evidence so long as it meshes with your belief....you have certainly proven so far that you accept something as evidence in support of the A that isn't.


----------



## Crick (Apr 28, 2016)

The WG I report is a little large to post here.  How about a link?  www.ipcc.ch

There, that should make you happy.  Give us a smile Snookums.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> The WG I report is a little large to post here.  How about a link?  www.ipcc.ch
> 
> There, that should make you happy.  Give us a smile Snookums.



And talk and talk and talk...and you still remain unable to provide the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the A in AGW....like you said yourself....when people make claims about what is contained in a site and don't bring it forward, they are just talking out of their asses....by your own standards crick, you are talking out of your ass...and we both know that you can't bring any observed, measured, quantified evidence from that site that supports the A in AGW  because no such evidence exists....if it did, you would be heaping it on this thread till there was little room for anything else....but you aren't, because there is nothing there...all there is is you talking.


----------



## Olde Europe (Apr 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> I haven't made an argument on this thread...and I haven't asked for argument...I have stated that there is zero observed, measured, quantified data in support of the A in AGW....zero actual observed evidence from the observable, measurable, quantifiable world regarding a hypothesis that deals entirely with the observable, measurable, quantifiable world.....and my statement has been proven true as evidenced by the lack of anything even remotely resembling observed, measured quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...



Is this thing still on?  You are really compounding your self-humiliation, SSDD, for as long as this thread lives.  You ask for measured data for the A in AGW, which means you are asking for measurement of causation.  Once again: Causation cannot be measured, just inferred.  Those with more than rudimentary understanding of science know that, and it's known since Hume.  To put it slightly differently, you are demanding to be served a scientific unicorn.

At the very least, you could read Chapter 8 of AR5 (WG1), which specifically discusses the various sizes and signs of anthropogenic and natural forcing.  We both know you won't, since this thread isn't about AGW, or even the A in AGW.  It's about SSDD's victory lap having "demonstrated" that no scientific unicorn with the required specifications exists.  Well done.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> I haven't made an argument on this thread.


Oh yes you have. You have argued against all the evidence that came out challenging your OP.  And you continue to make arguments. Against science.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Do you really believe that our description of quantum mechanics in 100 years, or 200 years will bear any resemblance to the place holding stories we tell today in an attempt to explain what we, at this point, aren't even close to understanding? Do you think it will even be as close to the modern explanation as the aether hypothesis was?


Quantum electrodynamics accuracy is far more than enough to explain back scatter and the green house effect. It will be valid and good enough in that realm forever. 


SSDD said:


> And none of that even begins to address my OP statement anyway...


Yes it does, when you reject the science observations that addresses your OP.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 28, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Do you really believe that our description of quantum mechanics in 100 years, or 200 years will bear any resemblance to the place holding stories we tell today in an attempt to explain what we, at this point, aren't even close to understanding? Do you think it will even be as close to the modern explanation as the aether hypothesis was?
> ...


*Models are NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE*... Knock off the common core - new physics crap...  You guys keep posting up "the model shows" knowing that it is not empirical evidence and then treat it as such..  Even your proxies dont have the spatial and temporal resolution to prove or disprove anything at this point.

The data I posted in post 4 of this thread cleanly lays the IPCC claims waste... OBSERVED, PHYSICAL, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, I might add...


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2016)

PK1 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


I cherry picked science?  How the fk can you say that when I quoted you right out of the official warmer document AR5?  how is it IIIIIIIIIIII cherry picked?  You're just a soar loser.  you got jobbed by the IPCC and now you can't figure out how to rip that paper bag over your head.  AR5 disproves CO2 as a source of heat as stated in their own document.

"As one example, _*the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.*_05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño,_* is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012;*_ 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}"


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> There's tons.  You've been shown it repeatedly.  You continue to lie at every turn and refuse to accept what the world's scientists - of every stripe - recognize as evidence supporting AGW.  Everyone here knows that.  There simply is no question of the validity of AGW any more.  The only people who actually believe there is no evidence are the folks in tin hats worried about contrails and satellites.  You have become the fringe of the fringe.


no, an inaccurate post, you have no observed data. None.  Just cause the message board internet thingy allows you type those words is not proof of your claim.  You continue to fail.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > absolutely no...zero...nada...naught.....zilch.....zip...and in effect, diddly squat that amounts to actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the real world
> ...


and nothing can be presented by those who think they have the power to pull one over on someone, and continue to fail at that. So not only can't you provide any observable data, you can't even discuss it correctly.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


logical fallacy/.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't made an argument on this thread...and I haven't asked for argument...I have stated that there is zero observed, measured, quantified data in support of the A in AGW....zero actual observed evidence from the observable, measurable, quantifiable world regarding a hypothesis that deals entirely with the observable, measurable, quantifiable world.....and my statement has been proven true as evidenced by the lack of anything even remotely resembling observed, measured quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...
> ...




And still not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW from you or anyone else...lots of talk...no data....see a trend here?

And I am not asking for a measurement of causation...which, by the way, would be possible if we knew the cause...I am asking for observed, measured, quantified data that just supports the A in AGW....you guys don't even have that..


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't made an argument on this thread.
> ...



Which evidence that has been presented on this thread, or any other thread do you think actually supports the A in AGW...,crick posted some measurements of radiation emitting from atmospheric gasses recorded with instruments cooled to temperatures lower than -80F....that certainly doesn't provide any support for the A in AGW...rocks provided data showing that so called greenhouse gasses absorb IR....he failed to provide a graph showing that at least in the case of all except H2O they emit what they absorb....this doesn't prove in any way that absorption and emission = warming and certainly doesn't support the A in AGW....has their been any other actual data posted which is claimed to support the A in AGW?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Do you really believe that our description of quantum mechanics in 100 years, or 200 years will bear any resemblance to the place holding stories we tell today in an attempt to explain what we, at this point, aren't even close to understanding? Do you think it will even be as close to the modern explanation as the aether hypothesis was?
> ...



So why no measurements of back scatter at ambient temperature...you claim that it happens at ambient temperature, 24/7..... why no observation of it in the history of the universe?  Are you claiming that it is not an observable , measurable, quantifiable phenomenon?  You can sure measure radiation moving from the atmosphere to a cooler instrument on the ground...of course energy moving from warm to cool is predicted by the laws of physics....energy moving from cool to warm however....not so much...

Model output is not observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from the observable, measurable, quantifiable world....why pretend that it is?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


You just made my case. Crick and Rock supplied evidence and  you deny the science behind it.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Model output is not observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from the observable, measurable, quantifiable world....why pretend that it is?


The science behind backscatter has a solid foundation and is believed by 100% of all physicists whether they are warmers or deniers. In fact the science has been indisputable for well over one hundred years. 

If you care to question the science, that is your problem not mine.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


so the point you missed was it wasn't evidence.  They posted a response with nothing of evidence in it.  So oops!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Model output is not observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from the observable, measurable, quantifiable world....why pretend that it is?
> ...


Well it is your problem cause you can't prove it. It's also their problem cause they can't prove it.  less LWIR does not mean more warming.  show me a physicist that would agree with that.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Crick supplied evidence that if you cool your instrument down to -80 you can measure incoming radiation from the atmosphere...how do you suppose that supports the A in AGW?  Should be interesting.

Rocks provided evidence that so called greenhouse gasses absorb while leaving out the fact that they also emit what they absorb....that doesn't even begin to prove that absorption and emission equals warming, much less that man is responsible for climate change...but by all means, do describe how you think that the fact that so called greenhouse gasses absorb and emit supports the A in AGW...again...it is sure to be interesting.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Model output is not observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from the observable, measurable, quantifiable world....why pretend that it is?
> ...



So you say and yet, there exist no measurements taken at ambient temperature....and without actual measurements of this claimed physical phenomenon, the discussion is certainly not settled...



Wuwei said:


> If you care to question the science, that is your problem not mine.



Actual science dealing with physical phenomena is observation, measurement, and quantification....model output is not a suitable substitute for actual observation and measurement when you are talking about physical phenomena....sorry that you think it is....it does explain why you are a believer though...and why you believe there is actual observed, measured, quantified data when, in fact, none exists.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



They have faith....nothing real or tangible for the f'ing atmosphere for pete's sake...but they have faith in spades....


----------



## Crick (Apr 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




You're stupid and you lie.  There is no point in talking to you about anything.  Buh-Bye.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> You can sure measure radiation moving from the atmosphere to a cooler instrument on the ground...of course energy moving from warm to cool is predicted by the laws of physics....energy moving from cool to warm however....not so much.


Do we have to go through the fact again that thermal radiation from the cold cosmic microwave background can strike a warm parabolic dish on earth hundreds of degrees warmer.


SSDD said:


> Model output is not observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from the observable, measurable, quantifiable world....why pretend that it is?


The entire body of physics understanding is in mathematical models. If you don't believe in those models, you don't believe in anything that has to do with science. Period.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick supplied evidence that if you cool your instrument down to -80 you can measure incoming radiation from the atmosphere...how do you suppose that supports the A in AGW? Should be interesting.


So what if it's cooled down. Back scatter was measured. Don't forget the CMB also shows radiation can go from warm objects to cooler ones.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 28, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You can sure measure radiation moving from the atmosphere to a cooler instrument on the ground...of course energy moving from warm to cool is predicted by the laws of physics....energy moving from cool to warm however....not so much.
> ...



But physics also undergoes rigorous testing of their models. I heard an interview with Kaku talking about how Relativity has passed every test for 100 years, but if it failed on even one data point it would have to be rejected and replaced by another theory.

How many tests has AGW passed? None, right?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Actual science dealing with physical phenomena is observation, measurement, and quantification.


Don't forget the ultimate important outcome of observation, measurement, and quantification is the model. As in relativity and quantum mechanics, the model is ultimately more important than the original measurements because it has predictive powers that simple observation lacks.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 28, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> How many tests has AGW passed? None, right?


Wrong. Quantum mechanics predicts back scattering which has been measured.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 28, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > How many tests has AGW passed? None, right?
> ...



Did you not understand the question?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Funny, That's the same way we feel about you.  You cant connect the dots and you refuse to use cognitive thought.

You say it makes the temperature rise yet you have no evidence to support your suppositions..


----------



## Olde Europe (Apr 29, 2016)

jc456 said:


> I cherry picked science? How the fk can you say that when I quoted you right out of the official warmer document AR5? how is it IIIIIIIIIIII cherry picked? You're just a soar loser. you got jobbed by the IPCC and now you can't figure out how to rip that paper bag over your head. AR5 disproves CO2 as a source of heat as stated in their own document.
> 
> "As one example, _*the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.*_05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño,_* is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012;*_ 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5.



For pity's sake!

For the longest period when calculation of regional trends is sufficiently complete (1901–2012), almost the entire globe has experienced surface warming. *In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability. Owing to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends.* As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade). Trends for 15-year periods starting in 1995, 1996, and 1997 are 0.13 [0.02 to 0.24], 0.14 [0.03 to 0.24] and 0.07 [–0.02 to 0.18], respectively.

AR5, WG1, p 162.​
So, why don't you provide a link to the climate hoaxter site that gave you the quote and instructed you to think that it "disproves CO2 as a source of heat"?  Thanks in advance.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



See ya....don't let the door knob hit you in the ass on your way out....it might shove that tail you have tucked between your legs up your butt crack to an uncomfortable degree....thanks for playing and proving my point...not the first shred of actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the failed hypothesis you believe in so fervently....must be frustrating.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 29, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Do we have to go through the fact again that thermal radiation from the cold cosmic microwave background can strike a warm parabolic dish on earth hundreds of degrees warmer.



Na since you already lost that....resonance radio frequencies are not IR....but thanks for playing......either you can provide observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW or you can't....clearly you can't...why not just admit it rather than spend all this time trying to divert?




fedor50 said:


> The entire body of physics understanding is in mathematical models. If you don't believe in those models, you don't believe in anything that has to do with science. Period.




And yet, the climate models fail miserably....might that be due to the fact that climate science doesn't actually understand physics?....when aeronautical engineers apply physics to their model wings, tails, nose cones etc and run the models if they succeed then they build a mock up and test the model against actual observation...if it fails in the wind tunnel, do you think they go into regular production?....or go back to the drawing board...

The climate models have failed in the wind tunnel...why then are you people still pushing for full production?...the hypothesis failed because of an imperfect understanding of physics...no other way around it.  If they were based on a solid understanding of the physics and what actually drives the climate, they would not be failing.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 29, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick supplied evidence that if you cool your instrument down to -80 you can measure incoming radiation from the atmosphere...how do you suppose that supports the A in AGW? Should be interesting.
> ...




No...energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument was measured...that is not back scatter...that is energy moving from warm to cool as the second law predicts...measure "backscatter" at ambient temperature if you want to prove that it is happening...hard not to note that no such measurements exist as such a phenomenon has never been observed.

CMB was discovered via resonant radio frequency with a helium cooled instrument...and aside from that, it doesn't support the A in AGW anyway...nothing but a straw man to divert from the fact that there is no actual observed evidence in support of the A in AGW....


----------



## SSDD (Apr 29, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Actual science dealing with physical phenomena is observation, measurement, and quantification.
> ...



Who can ever forget how miserably the models have failed....there is a string of failures going back decades despite constant tweaking of the models and tweaking of the data base in an attempt to alter reality to fit the models....  Oh...that's right warmers forget it on a daily basis....sometimes multiple times per hour apparently..


----------



## SSDD (Apr 29, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > How many tests has AGW passed? None, right?
> ...



Sorry but it hasn't....an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere isn't measuring backscatter...it is measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...that is not back scatter...according to you guys backscatter is energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth...that has never been observed and measured...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 29, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> So, why don't you provide a link to the climate hoaxter site that gave you the quote and instructed you to think that it "disproves CO2 as a source of heat"?  Thanks in advance.



Why don't you post some observed, measured, quantified data supporting the A in AGW...that's what this thread is about isn't it?...

Never mind...there is none and you just can't bring yourself to admit that you believe while there is zero evidence to support that belief.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 29, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Na since you already lost that....resonance radio frequencies are not IR....but thanks for playing......either you can provide observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW or you can't....clearly you can't...why not just admit it rather than spend all this time trying to divert?


So you are claiming that the CMB, thermal energy, is resonance radio frequencies. That is absurd and you know it. Please cite a source that says the CMB striking a warm antenna dish on earth is anything other than thermal IR.


SSDD said:


> ...then aeronautical engineers apply physics to their model wings, tails ...


Of course, but you don't believe in the mathematical model of quantum mechanics. That is far more fundamental than an airplane wing.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 29, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Sorry but it hasn't....an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere isn't measuring backscatter...it is measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...that is not back scatter...according to you guys backscatter is energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth...that has never been observed and measured...


Thermal radiation energy moves from any object at any temperature to any other object at any other temperature. We went over that before a thousand times. You forgot?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 29, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


In the realm of this solar system, today's understanding of quantum mechanics has never failed. You continually come out with silly statements in science, where 100% of today's physicists would disagree with you.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 29, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


We went over Stefan-Boltzman law many times. You still don't understand it. As I said many times before, Thermal radiation energy moves from any object at any temperature to any other object at any other temperature. 100% of all physical scientists understand that.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I cherry picked science? How the fk can you say that when I quoted you right out of the official warmer document AR5? how is it IIIIIIIIIIII cherry picked? You're just a soar loser. you got jobbed by the IPCC and now you can't figure out how to rip that paper bag over your head. AR5 disproves CO2 as a source of heat as stated in their own document.
> ...



AR5, the document that said the oceans are absorbing 93% of the "excess heat"?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 1, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



The ignorance of the left is so stunning.  And that many now in the republican party who are on the total control band wagon now should send shivers down every man,woman, and child's spines.The left wing power trip depends on the AWG lie.  With it being so central to their power mongering you would of thought they could have been more precise in its creation and more careful that it would not be so easily dispelled as a lie...

To date not one of the alarmists here have been able to show causation.  Many possible hypothesis exist but none provable by empirical evidence and observed data. Correlation does not imply causation. This simple phrase in science is being ignored by the AGW faithful.

AGW is a Gaia Religion and has no basis in fact.


----------



## SSDD (May 1, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Na since you already lost that....resonance radio frequencies are not IR....but thanks for playing......either you can provide observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW or you can't....clearly you can't...why not just admit it rather than spend all this time trying to divert?
> ...



When the model fails....it is due to faulty understanding/application of the physics involved whether it is for an aircraft wing, or a climate model...Climate models have been failing spectacularly since their first use...cause?....faulty understanding/application of atmospheric physics.


----------



## SSDD (May 1, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry but it hasn't....an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere isn't measuring backscatter...it is measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...that is not back scatter...according to you guys backscatter is energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth...that has never been observed and measured...
> ...




So you keep saying, and I suspect you will continue to say...however, energy moving from cool to warm has never been measured at ambient temperature...believe if you like, but I will stick with every observation ever made....you forgot?


----------



## SSDD (May 1, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Quantum physics can't even explain the composition of the electron cloud around a hydrogen atom without an ad hoc fix....The fact remains that the atmosphere is an observable, measurable, quantifiable entity and climate science has zero observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from the real world to support the A in AGW....and the models are failures......that is the state of climate science today...clearly the QM isn't helping climate science build a climate model that works...


----------



## SSDD (May 1, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



What you seem to keep forgetting is that SB states that radiation moves form any object at any temperature in a vacuum...is the atmosphere a vacuum?


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2016)

Interesting to note that in the other threads, the claims of massive mountains of observed, measured, quantified evidence go on...while in this thread, specifically aimed at seeing just one piece of such evidence remains unanswered....testament to the lying nature of warmists...even when shown conclusively that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW, you continue to believe....or just lie....my bet is that you just lie.


----------



## Wuwei (May 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Already been through this....review at .... http://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.7749.pdf  ....full explanation for you of how CMB is detected via resonance frequency....
> 
> Not going to argue that point with you any further....if you want to detect the actual CMB signal...you must cool your receiver to about 3K
> 
> Nope....CMB is IR but it can be detected via resonance frequencies in the neighborhood of 150GHz....again, refer to the link above....full explanation...sorry this is so difficult for you....might it be that you aren't as smart as you think you are?


You missed my point. It is so simple. The reflecting dish is never cooled and is hundreds of degrees warmer than the source. The CMB must hit a warmer reflecting dish, otherwise it can't get to a detector of any sort.


SSDD said:


> When the model fails....it is due to faulty understanding/application of the physics involved whether it is for an aircraft wing, or a climate model...Climate models have been failing spectacularly since their first use...cause?....faulty understanding/application of atmospheric physics.


The CMB demonstrates that cold radiation can strike a warm (radio antenna) object. Back-scatter is a fundamental premise of keeping the earth warm. If you reject back-scatter, you disagree with the physics of 100 years ago. And you disagree with 100% of all physical scientists today. And you have no way to explain how the earth can stay in radiative equilibrium.


----------



## Wuwei (May 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> energy moving from cool to warm has never been measured at ambient temperature...believe if you like, but I will stick with every observation ever made


What you mean is that you don't understand the science involved, and you disagree with every scientist. So you have no argument to support your OP.


----------



## Wuwei (May 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Quantum physics can't even explain the composition of the electron cloud around a hydrogen atom without an ad hoc fix....


That is totally untrue. That was known decades ago. If you really think it's ad hoc cite a source.


SSDD said:


> ...clearly the QM isn't helping climate science build a climate model that works.



QM does help the A in AGW... It illustrates the mechanism of back-scatter.


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> You missed my point. It is so simple. The reflecting dish is never cooled and is hundreds of degrees warmer than the source. The CMB must hit a warmer reflecting dish, otherwise it can't get to a detector of any sort.



You miss the point...the signal detected was radio waves...not IR...



Wuwei said:


> The CMB demonstrates that cold radiation can strike a warm (radio antenna) object. Back-scatter is a fundamental premise of keeping the earth warm. If you reject back-scatter, you disagree with the physics of 100 years ago. And you disagree with 100% of all physical scientists today. And you have no way to explain how the earth can stay in radiative equilibrium.



And the point still whooshes right over your head....The signal detected was a radio signal...to actually detect CMB, one must have an instrument cooled to about 3K...this really isn't that difficult...CMB was first detected via resonance radio frequency...not actual CMB...


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > energy moving from cool to warm has never been measured at ambient temperature...believe if you like, but I will stick with every observation ever made
> ...



Nope...what I mean is that energy moving from cool to warm has never been detected at ambient temperature....that is a fact...and clearly you don't understand as much as you think because you are still arguing about a detector that was collecting radio waves..at about 150 Ghz...


----------



## Wuwei (May 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> What you seem to keep forgetting is that SB states that radiation moves form any object at any temperature in a vacuum...is the atmosphere a vacuum?


You are making up physics again.


----------



## Wuwei (May 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> You miss the point...the signal detected was radio waves...not IR...





SSDD said:


> And the point still whooshes right over your head....The signal detected was a radio signal...to actually detect CMB, one must have an instrument cooled to about 3K...this really isn't that difficult...CMB was first detected via resonance radio frequency...not actual CMB...





SSDD said:


> Nope...what I mean is that energy moving from cool to warm has never been detected at ambient temperature....that is a fact...and clearly you don't understand as much as you think because you are still arguing about a detector that was collecting radio waves..at about 150 Ghz...


The IR from something at 2.7 K is a broad band of long wave radiation which is commonly called "radio frequencies". So what?


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> That is totally untrue. That was known decades ago. If you really think it's ad hoc cite a source.



Here is an explanation...

The electron structure of an atom is supposed to be described by a wave function defined by 4 (integer) quantum numbers (_n,l,m,s_) with  _n_ = 1,2,..., the principal (shell) quantum number,  _l _= 0,.., _n _-1, the azimutal quantum number, _m _ranging from_ -l _to_ +l _the magnetic quantum number_  and s _= +- 1/2 the spin quantum number.

The 3 quantum numbers (_n,l,m_) describe the wave functions for excited states (eigen-functions or orbitals) of the Hydrogen atom, with the 1 wave function for _n_ = 1 representing the s-state of the first shell, the 1+ 3 = 4 wave functions for _n_ = 2 representing the p-states of the second shell, and the 4 + 5 = 9 wave functions for _n_ = 3 representing the d-states of the the third shell et cet. The connection is that the Hydrogen eigen-functions form a basis allowing the electronic structure of a multi-electron atom to be represented by linear combinations.

We see that the number of Hydrogen orbitals equals _n^2_, which is to be compared with the observed number _2n^2_ electrons in a complete shell, with He (2 electrons in shell 1), Ne (2 electrons in shell 1 and 8 in shell 2), Ar (2+8+8), Kr (2+8+18+8), et cet. A factor 2 is thus missing and this factor was introduced by adding a 4th quantum number as the two-valued spin quantum number _s. _
The spin quantum number thus came out as a forced resolution of a contradiction between observed electronic shell structure with 2n^2 electrons in a complete shell with a structure represented by n^2 Hydrogen orbitals. But a motivation that a multi-electron shell structure should resemble the s-p-d structure of the orbitals of the one-electron Hydrogen atom, was missing.

The structure of the periodic table is thus claimed to be inherited from the structure of Hydrogen orbitals augmented by spin, as the basic experimental support of quantum mechanics.  But there are irregularities of the periodic table which require additional (ad hoc) assumptions such as Madelung's and Hund's rules.



Wuwei said:


> QM does help the A in AGW... It illustrates the mechanism of back-scatter.



And yet this "backscatter" which according to trenberth is more than two times greater than the incoming radiation from the sun can not be measured at ambient temperature while the piddling incoming radiation from the sun can certainly be measured at ambient temperature....doesn't this strike you as strange?


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You miss the point...the signal detected was radio waves...not IR...
> ...



Try as hard as you like....CMB was first detected via resonant radio frequency by a radio telescope....that fact is never going to change and it doesn't prove your idiotic backscatter belief.


----------



## Wuwei (May 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Here is an explanation...
> ............  Madelung's and Hund's rules.


For God's sake. That was in 1925. That was a problem in the early versions of Schrodinger's equation. All of that was totally explained later by Quantum ElectroDynamics. 


SSDD said:


> And yet this "backscatter" which according to trenberth is more than two times greater than the incoming radiation from the sun can not be measured at ambient temperature while the piddling incoming radiation from the sun can certainly be measured at ambient temperature....doesn't this strike you as strange?


Nope. Of course it seems strange to anyone who doesn't believe back-scatter. How else can you explain why the earth doesn't freeze when it's radiating 400W/m2. And only absorbing. 160 W/m2 from the sun.


----------



## Wuwei (May 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Try as hard as you like....CMB was first detected via resonant radio frequency by a radio telescope....that fact is never going to change and it doesn't prove your idiotic backscatter belief.


It has to hit a warm radio dish first. How do you explain that?

I can't take credit for the backscatter belief. It is believed by all scientists.


----------



## jc456 (May 2, 2016)

*How else can you explain why the earth doesn't freeze when it's radiating 400W/m2. And only absorbing. 160 W/m2 from the sun.*

As I explained in another thread, how hot does the incoming UV heat the ground, water, buildings, and don't you think they emit LWIR when they emit and it will be much greater than the incoming UV rays?


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Try as hard as you like....CMB was first detected via resonant radio frequency by a radio telescope....that fact is never going to change and it doesn't prove your idiotic backscatter belief.
> ...



You think radio waves have temperature?



Wuwei said:


> I can't take credit for the backscatter belief. It is believed by all scientists.



Without the first actual observation, or measurement at ambient temperature....ladies and gentlemen...I give you the state of post modern science....Take a good look.


And on and on and on....and still not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified data in support of the A in AGW...which is what this particular thread is all about.


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Nope. Of course it seems strange to anyone who doesn't believe back-scatter. How else can you explain why the earth doesn't freeze when it's radiating 400W/m2. And only absorbing. 160 W/m2 from the sun.



You do realize don't you...that the solar flux at the TOA is 1368 wm2?....  That 161 number is an artifact of trenberths idiot cartoon pretending that the earth is flat, doesn't rotate and receives a weak twilight 24/7....  And the amount actually being absorbed across the entire surface of the earth is an estimate as to date, climate science isn't sure what the albedo of the earth is....


----------



## IanC (May 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




what a stupid thing to say.....the atmosphere IS the object.


----------



## IanC (May 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. Of course it seems strange to anyone who doesn't believe back-scatter. How else can you explain why the earth doesn't freeze when it's radiating 400W/m2. And only absorbing. 160 W/m2 from the sun.
> ...





there is no way you can get 400w of surface radiation (15 degrees centigrade average) from average solar input of 160w without the atmosphere returning energy to the surface.

tell us where the extra energy comes from. be specific


----------



## Wuwei (May 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. Of course it seems strange to anyone who doesn't believe back-scatter. How else can you explain why the earth doesn't freeze when it's radiating 400W/m2. And only absorbing. 160 W/m2 from the sun.
> ...


The solar flux is around 1368 only at the equator at high noon. The energy to the rest of the earth facing the sun fades to zero at sunset and sunrise. If you use Lambert's law, the average energy over the full daylight side drops by a factor of two. Then if you consider that half the earth is dark, the average energy drops by another factor of 2.

The total average energy per day and night is 1368 / 4 = 342 W/m2. A little over half that energy is not absorbed at the ground level and that amounts to around 160 W/m2. If you have a better idea of the albedo is, let us know, but I guarantee it will be much less than the 400 W/m2 the earth is continually radiating, day and night.

We went through all that a few months ago. Try to remember it this time.


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



So we are now back to averages and models, and  data manipulation in lieu of actual observed, measured, quantified data in support of the A in AGW...how unsurprising is that?

And I can't help but notice that your figures don't include any of the earth's own heat generating capacity...one more reason the models invariably fail...at this point climate science doesn't know enough to even include the parameters that drive the climate...much less settle the science..CO2 is not even a bit player...as evidenced by the warmer side of this discussion to provide even the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence which would support the A (read CO2) in AGW...


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



NO...CO2 molecules and any other radiative gas is the object....the rest of the atmosphere is invisible in so far as radiation is concerned...


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Atmospheric thermal effect...and the earth's own heat generating capacity...which at this point is a complete unknown....there is no back radiation...and there is no tropospheric hot spot...and back radiation which according to climate science is greater than the incoming radiation from the sun can not be measured at ambient temperature while the piddling 160 from the sun can be measured at ambient temperature with no problem...your hypothesis is a failure...and always will be....and still not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...


----------



## jc456 (May 3, 2016)

*"The solar flux is around 1368 only at the equator at high noon. The energy to the rest of the earth facing the sun fades to zero at sunset and sunrise. If you use Lambert's law, the average energy over the full daylight side drops by a factor of two. Then if you consider that half the earth is dark, the average energy drops by another factor of 2.

The total average energy per day and night is 1368 / 4 = 342 W/m2. A little over half that energy is not absorbed at the ground level and that amounts to around 160 W/m2. If you have a better idea of the albedo is, let us know, but I guarantee it will be much less than the 400 W/m2 the earth is continually radiating, day and night.

We went through all that a few months ago. Try to remember it this time.*"

Do you believe the earth doesn't absorb incoming UV?  You know the earth is mostly ocean right?  I don't know you and others seem to be stuck on back radiation is hotter than UV rays and nowhere can you show a hot spot that those IR waves would heat up anything.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 3, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


That is right, Silly Billy. You don't do appeals to authority, because you never ever have bothered to read any authoritative sources. Instead, you pull really stupid numbers and claims out of your ass, and make braindead claims as to your educational background.

The evidence supporting the A in AGW is simply overwhelming. From the laws of physics, to the observed evidence in the rising temperatures in the atmosphere and oceans. By using the then known laws of physics, Svante Arrhenius was able to make a reasonable estimate of the effects of doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere in 1896. All that has happened since then has confirmed his estimates.


----------



## Wuwei (May 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


> So we are now back to averages and models, and data manipulation in lieu of actual observed, measured, quantified data in support of the A in AGW...how unsurprising is that?


The sun's output is easily measured. It's not a model. There is no data manipulation in determining the average energy output hitting earth. 


SSDD said:


> And I can't help but notice that your figures don't include any of the earth's own heat generating capacity...one more reason the models invariably fail...at this point climate science doesn't know enough to even include the parameters that drive the climate...much less settle the science..CO2 is not even a bit player...as evidenced by the warmer side of this discussion to provide even the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence which would support the A (read CO2) in AGW...


You didn't answer the question: The surface of the earth absorbs 160 W/m2 SW radiation from the sun; and the surface emits 400 W/m2 LW radiation. Do you disagree significantly with those figures. If so, what do you think they are. If not, how do you reconcile that difference in energy.


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> There is no data manipulation in determining the average energy output hitting earth.



Of course there is...it is all manipulated data...averages that have little meaning from day to day.   We don't even know for sure what the albedo of the earth is so there is no way to know how much energy is actually absorbed by the surface of the earth.



Wuwei said:


> You didn't answer the question: The surface of the earth absorbs 160 W/m2 SW radiation from the sun; and the surface emits 400 W/m2 LW radiation. Do you disagree significantly with those figures. If so, what do you think they are. If not, how do you reconcile that difference in energy.



As I have already said...atmospheric thermal effect...based on the ideal gas laws...and oddly enough, a method that accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere while the physics of the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature of earth without a fudge factor and doesn't even come close to predicting the temperatures of other planets....

But all this is nether here nor there....the thread is about your inability to produce even the first shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...Three pages now and counting without even the first bit of actual observed evidence that supports that all important A.


----------



## Wuwei (May 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Of course there is...it is all manipulated data...averages that have little meaning from day to day. We don't even know for sure what the albedo of the earth is so there is no way to know how much energy is actually absorbed by the surface of the earth.


You are deflecting from the question again. The albedo has been continually observed and measured by satellites.  The average is long term, where day to day, changes are averaged out.


SSDD said:


> As I have already said...atmospheric thermal effect...based on the ideal gas laws...and oddly enough, a method that accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system that has an atmosphere while the physics of the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature of earth without a fudge factor and doesn't even come close to predicting the temperatures of other planets....


That is old crap from an old blog. The ideal gas law only gives an estimate of air density as a function of altitude, not *long term* temperature dynamics.


SSDD said:


> But all this is nether here nor there....the thread is about your inability to produce even the first shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...Three pages now and counting without even the first bit of actual observed evidence that supports that all important A.


Yes, evidence has been presented. But you don't believe in quantum mechanics, so your response is neither here nor there.

Do you understand the question; how can the earth radiate 400 W/m2 when it receives only 160 from the sun.


----------



## SSDD (May 4, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> You are deflecting from the question again. The albedo has been continually observed and measured by satellites.  The average is long term, where day to day, changes are averaged out.



Continually monitored and yet, we aren't sure....

A quick search yields figures from 0.20 to about .040...quite a spread...and GCM's have traditionally characterized it as constant but we are finding now that it isn't but aren't sure of the variation from season to season and don't have a clue as to how it effects the global climate budget...gaping holes in a basic requirement for understanding the global climate....and yet, you think the science is settled...



Wuwei said:


> That is old crap from an old blog. The ideal gas law only gives an estimate of air density as a function of altitude, not *long term* temperature dynamics.



So you say and yet, it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature of earth without a fudge factor...



Wuwei said:


> Yes, evidence has been presented. But you don't believe in quantum mechanics, so your response is neither here nor there.



I asked for observed, measured, quantified evidence collected from out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable world and thus far, neither you, nor anyone else has been able to put up...model output is all you have and it doesn't agree with actual observation...so what does climate science do?...it furiously manipulates the observed record in an attempt to keep up the models.



Wuwei said:


> Do you understand the question; how can the earth radiate 400 W/m2 when it receives only 160 from the sun.



I answered the question...sorry you don't like it...now how about you....do you understand the point of this thread?....it is a request that you warmers provide some observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW that has actually been gathered out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable world....model output is not observed, measured, quantified evidence...it is a starting place...not an end...  Do you think engineers start large projects based on model output that has not stood the test of observation, measurement, and quantification over and over and over again?


----------



## Wuwei (May 4, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Continually monitored and yet, we aren't sure....
> A quick search yields figures from 0.20 to about .040...quite a spread...and GCM's have traditionally characterized it as constant but we are finding now that it isn't but aren't sure of the variation from season to season and don't have a clue as to how it effects the global climate budget...gaping holes in a basic requirement for understanding the global climate....and yet, you think the science is settled...



Seasonal variations are part of the definition of averaging. So even if the figures are your worst case 20% off, that means the energy reaching the earth is 160 W/m2 + 20% = 192 W/m2. That is much higher than any figure in the literature, yet it is still much lower than the 400 W/m2 that the earth is radiating.


SSDD said:


> So you say and yet, it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse effect can't even predict the temperature of earth without a fudge factor...


It is still a bogus blog posting. I read it once and it was simply full of crap. It assumed a long term effect from a static calculation.


SSDD said:


> I asked for observed, measured, quantified evidence collected from out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable world and thus far, neither you, nor anyone else has been able to put up...model output is all you have and it doesn't agree with actual observation...so what does climate science do?...it furiously manipulates the observed record in an attempt to keep up the models.


You were given observed, measured, quantified back-scatter data by others in this thread. The fact that you reject the science of thermodynamics as it stands, means that you deny what 100% of physical science know about thermodynamics – radiant energy must move between any objects at any temperatures. If you blindly reject that physics, of course you will reject everything else. So your opinion means nothing to anyone else in this thread or any university or any other institution that understands the science.


SSDD said:


> I answered the question...sorry you don't like it...now how about you....do you understand the point of this thread?....it is a request that you warmers provide some observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW that has actually been gathered out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable world....model output is not observed, measured, quantified evidence...it is a starting place...not an end... Do you think engineers start large projects based on model output that has not stood the test of observation, measurement, and quantification over and over and over again?



You did not answer the question, but evaded it. If you disagree, please direct me to your response on how the earth receives less than 200 W/m2 of SW radiation from the sun yet radiates 400 W/m2 of LW radiation.

Look, I really don't care if you and your minions here believe AGW is wrong. But what is wrong is using bogus science to attempt to make your point.


----------



## SSDD (May 4, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> It is still a bogus blog posting. I read it once and it was simply full of crap. It assumed a long term effect from a static calculation.



Ever see a static atmosphere?  The fact is that pressure creates heat and would reach equilibrium in a static column of air...not so with the constant movement in a real atmosphere...



Wuwei said:


> You were given observed, measured, quantified back-scatter data by others in this thread.



I was given measurements taken with an instrument cooled to -80F...that is not backscatter...that is simply energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...backscatter is something that would have to be measured at ambient temperature...where the instrument was warmer than the emitter...and such measurements have never been made or observed...




Wuwei said:


> You did not answer the question, but evaded it. If you disagree, please direct me to your response on how the earth receives less than 200 W/m2 of SW radiation from the sun yet radiates 400 W/m2 of LW radiation.



Of course I did...that you don't like my answer doesn't change it.



Wuwei said:


> Look, I really don't care if you and your minions here believe AGW is wrong. But what is wrong is using bogus science to attempt to make your point.



Then why bother...especially when you couldn't even begin to provide the evidence that was asked for in the OP...you couldn't because it doesn't exist...


----------



## jc456 (May 4, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Do you believe the earth doesn't absorb incoming UV? You know the earth is mostly ocean right? I don't know you and others seem to be stuck on back radiation is hotter than UV rays and nowhere can you show a hot spot that those IR waves would heat up anything.

BTW, others in here have stated that the cooler atmosphere slows the rate LWIR leaves the planet, not that back radiation heats the surface.  so, what say you?  Do you believe that IR causes a warmer surface or cool air causes warm air to become warmer?


----------



## Wuwei (May 4, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Ever see a static atmosphere? The fact is that pressure creates heat and would reach equilibrium in a static column of air...not so with the constant movement in a real atmosphere...



That is exactly my point. Your blog gotten theory is in static equilibrium and ignores the large dynamic energy flows into and out of the earth.



SSDD said:


> I was given measurements taken with an instrument cooled to -80F...that is not backscatter...that is simply energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...backscatter is something that would have to be measured at ambient temperature...where the instrument was warmer than the emitter...and such measurements have never been made or observed...



So you believe, but no other scientist agrees.



SSDD said:


> Of course I did...that you don't like my answer doesn't change it



Do you believe the surface of the earth is radiating roughly 400 W/m2.

That is a very simple question with a very simple answer, but I am positive you will evade it, distract it, or ignore it.



SSDD said:


> Then why bother...especially when you couldn't even begin to provide the evidence that was asked for in the OP...you couldn't because it doesn't exist...



Just because you keep saying that doesn't make it true. But you are right, why bother. You have proven yourself to be a anti-science in many many areas that have been proven time and again, such as electromagnetic theory and quantum mechanics.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 4, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Do you believe the surface of the earth is radiating roughly 400 W/m2.



Got to admire your patience.

Maybe, just maybe, this helps:


----------



## Wuwei (May 4, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> Maybe, just maybe, this helps: ...


Thank you for your complement.
SSDD is certainly aware of charts like that, but he rejects them outright when inconvenient.  I think his problem really could be a clinical denialism.

Denialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*Denialism*
_In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth. ... In the sciences, denialism is the rejection of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject, in favor of radical and controversial ideas._​
That certainly sounds like what his posts reveal, but another obvious answer is simply he is a troll. Nevertheless it is interesting where he takes concepts that are well understood in science. He knows enough about the science to make this pursuit interesting. His "yes-man" minions are much less interesting because they have only a dim understanding of science.


----------



## jc456 (May 4, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe, just maybe, this helps: ...
> ...


or the piece that says back radiation isn't proven and doesn't exist. I agree with him.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 4, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...


What evidence?  Are you implying that models are evidence of any kind?  Given they fail in three days or less at all levels, your so called evidence amounts to fantasy diddly-squat..


----------



## IanC (May 4, 2016)

The atmosphere is only there because of solar input. Solar energy is stored as both potential and kinetic energy by gas molecules (thickness and temperature).

Molecular collisions cause blackbody radiation in all directions, some of which returns to the surface, which in turn lowers the net heat loss from the surface.

Greenhouse gases capture some of the IR radiation from the surface, warming the atmosphere, which in turn produces more blackbody radiation as well as reemiting much of the same type of radiation that was absorbed (but NOT from the same molecule that absorbed it).

SSDD and the others who agree with him are fundamentally confused as to what is going on. They are ignoring the fact that every object emits radiation according to temperature. In this case, our atmosphere whether or not it has a component of GHGs or not.


----------



## jc456 (May 5, 2016)

IanC said:


> The atmosphere is only there because of solar input. Solar energy is stored as both potential and kinetic energy by gas molecules (thickness and temperature).
> 
> Molecular collisions cause blackbody radiation in all directions, some of which returns to the surface, which in turn lowers the net heat loss from the surface.
> 
> ...


  Again, your saying greenhouse gases are a source of heat and I don't agree with that.  And it can't be proven.  Or are you going to tell us you can read the signature of IR coming from the atmosphere?  heat only flows hot to cold and not the other direction, and again, can't be proven.

You can pump as much CO2 into a cylinder as you want and heat it up, it won't ever get hotter than what the temperature of the source heat is.  You all claim it will get hotter.  Prove it.  I agree the gases absorb the LWIR from the surface, and then it gets carried out of the atmosphere to space.  How fast that all occurs I have no idea, but if the surface temp is 70 degrees, that CO2 or other gas leaving isn't any hotter than that 70 degrees.  There is no hot spot in the atmosphere so it isn't getting hotter up there either.

BTW, if what you said was true, than there wouldn't be different temperatures everyday.  It would consistently be the same temp based on your silly diagrams.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 5, 2016)

jc456 said:


> heat only flows hot to cold and not the other direction



What you are saying, basically, is this:

A body (A) [for Atmosphere] at temperature x radiates energy if, and only if, there is a body somewhere near at a temperature <x, and only into that direction.

So, how does (A) figure out there is another body nearby, and what that body's temperature is, not to mention the direction where to find that body?


----------



## jc456 (May 5, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > heat only flows hot to cold and not the other direction
> ...


 I'm saying cold does not heat up warm.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 5, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Answer the question, then.


----------



## jc456 (May 5, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...


why does it matter?  The answer is that warm flows to cold and not vice versa.  It is true physics. Testable as well.  you post up the experiment that shows an ice cube warming a pan at room temperature.


----------



## IanC (May 5, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The atmosphere is only there because of solar input. Solar energy is stored as both potential and kinetic energy by gas molecules (thickness and temperature).
> ...




jc - we have been over this many times. 

Do you agree that the atmosphere warms and moderates the temperature at the surface? If yes, then why?

Any composition atmosphere will have this effect. GHGs exacerbate the effect because they impede the escape of IR directly to space. Eg- if the surface was losing 400w while only receiving 160w solar input, we would cool rapidly, both the surface AND the atmosphere. Without GHGs the new equilibrium might be something like 250w or 300w which is very cold.

You are focusing your attention on minutiae and ignoring the bigger picture. Of course colder objects can warm warmer objects that are being heated by an outside source. Temperature is an equilibrium between energy input and energy loss. Reducing loss is equally effective as adding input.


----------



## jc456 (May 5, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



*Do you agree that the atmosphere warms and moderates the temperature at the surface? If yes, then why?*

No, I do not think the atmosphere warms the surface, it is what I disagree with.  Heat is generated from the surface and heads upwards cause heat rises. How fast that all happens I haven’t a clue.

I also can tell you that it is cooler at night then during sunlight hours. And that after the heat of the day in a desert the nights are very cold.  Why?  Cause little to no moisture in the air and why it’s a desert.

Anecdotally, I can also tell you here in Chicago, one day it’s 80 degrees and the next day it’s 50 degrees.  Well why wouldn’t the same atmosphere conditions keep the temperature steady day to day if feedback GHG was two thirds the warmth?  I mean the input UV is still the same andthe atmosphere is still the same. This is the piece that I look at and logically can’t answer using the info you all give out on feedback.  I would expect the feedback would be the same, unchanged, and yet there is  30 degree change immediately.  I stand outside on both days and one day I feel the sun, the next I hardly feel it at all, which means the surface isn’t heating up.  Still follows the surface heat.

Then we get back to the night time temps, if two thirds of incoming heat is from GHGs why such drastic temperature changes when the sun is gone?

*Any composition atmosphere will have this effect. GHGs exacerbate the effect because they impede the escape of IR directly to space. Eg- if the surface was losing 400w while only receiving 160w solar input, we would cool rapidly, both the surface AND the atmosphere. Without GHGs the new equilibrium might be something like 250w or 300w which is very cold.*

There would be a hot spot if the atmosphere was actually warming up. Get up in the atmosphere a bit and it’s cold.  Really cold, lack of oxygen cold, why they have pressurized cabins on planes, why people die without it.

You’re asking me to abandon observed experiences with mumbo jumbo from a book that has never been tested.  At least never posted in this place.


----------



## IanC (May 5, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




the energy that warms the surface is generated in the Sun. the moon gets the same insolation but the average temp is lower that the earth, and the temp swings are much more exaggerated.

heat is a net movement of energy, always moving from warm to cool but faster from hot to cold.

without an atmosphere heat wouldnt rise, it would simply radiate away in the direction it was created. pockets of warm air rise because of gravity. there is a tremendous amount of energy stored in the atmosphere as potential energy, and in fact the atmosphere on the sunny side of the earth 'puffs up' every day only to relax again as it swings out of the sunlight.

deserts do indeed show that H2O is a more powerful GHG than CO2.

you say that the atmosphere doesnt affect temperatures yet you give an example of how surface temps can swing dozens of degrees in a short time. care to rethink that one?

I dont believe you have the faintest idea of what the hot spot is, or why it should be larger in a warming world.

hahahaha, the basic ideas I have been trying to point out to you are in EVERY physics text. sorry to hear that you have never read or understood one.


----------



## jc456 (May 5, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


*you say that the atmosphere doesn't affect temperatures yet you give an example of how surface temps can swing dozens of degrees in a short time. care to rethink that one?*
I never said that.  I said it doesn't make the surface warmer. 
*I dont believe you have the faintest idea of what the hot spot is, or why it should be larger in a warming world.*
I don't think you have the faintest idea of what a hot spot looks like or you would post up where it is.
And you still can't show how your magical feedback loop can change temperatures by 30 degrees cooler day to day.  A feedback requires actual something coming back.  I say it ain't there and you say it is.  yet my example is more incline to back me then you.


----------



## SSDD (May 5, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> That is exactly my point. Your blog gotten theory is in static equilibrium and ignores the large dynamic energy flows into and out of the earth.



Sorry, but it doesn't....and still it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even accurately predict the temperature of the earth without a fudge factor.



SSDD said:


> So you believe, but no other scientist agrees.



It isn't a matter of belief...you can't measure back scatter at ambient temperature even though it is supposedly twice as much radiation as comes in from the sun....while you can measure the incoming radiation from the sun at ambient temperature with no problem...energy moving from a warm object to a cooler object is not back scatter...it is simple energy transfer...



Wuwei said:


> just because you keep saying that doesn't make it true. But you are right, why bother. You have proven yourself to be a anti-science in many many areas that have been proven time and again, such as electromagnetic theory and quantum mechanics.



But you guys not providing it does make it true....for all the talk, not one shred of observed, measured, empirical evidence has been presented that supports the A in AGW...but if you believe some has, by all means point it out and say how you think it supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.


----------



## SSDD (May 5, 2016)

IanC said:


> The atmosphere is only there because of solar input. Solar energy is stored as both potential and kinetic energy by gas molecules (thickness and temperature).
> 
> Molecular collisions cause blackbody radiation in all directions, some of which returns to the surface, which in turn lowers the net heat loss from the surface.
> 
> ...



And still no tropospheric hot spot as a result of increasing CO2....but believe on Garth...if it trips your trigger.


----------



## SSDD (May 5, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc - we have been over this many times.
> 
> Do you agree that the atmosphere warms and moderates the temperature at the surface? If yes, then why?
> 
> ...



Atmospheric thermal effect...and oddly enough, it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even predict the temperature of earth without a fudge factor....the greenhouse hypothesis is wrong ian....it has failed as evidenced by the failing climate models based on it...if it were accurate, the models would't fail in mere hours...


----------



## Wuwei (May 5, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Sorry, but it doesn't....and still it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even accurately predict the temperature of the earth without a fudge factor.


What does your blog theory say about the 400 W/m2 continually radiating from the earth?


SSDD said:


> It isn't a matter of belief...you can't measure back scatter at ambient temperature even though it is supposedly twice as much radiation as comes in from the sun....while you can measure the incoming radiation from the sun at ambient temperature with no problem...energy moving from a warm object to a cooler object is not back scatter...it is simple energy transfer...


So what happens when you remove the detector. The back radiation ceases?


SSDD said:


> But you guys not providing it does make it true....for all the talk, not one shred of observed, measured, empirical evidence has been presented that supports the A in AGW...but if you believe some has, by all means point it out and say how you think it supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.


Others have presented the observed, measured, empirical evidence of back scatter in this thread. Go back and read it. But don't forget that 100% of all physicists believe that quantum mechanics shows that thermal radiation from a body at any temperature always strikes any other object in the radiation path no matter what temperature they both are. You cannot prove otherwise. To even think otherwise is ridiculous. If you want to believe in smart photons that don't like to hit warmer objects, then you are not talking about science. Period.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 5, 2016)

jc456 said:


> why does it matter? The answer is that warm flows to cold and not vice versa. It is true physics. Testable as well. you post up the experiment that shows an ice cube warming a pan at room temperature.



Why does it matter?  Gut question.  Were you to try - and inevitably fail - to answer it, you'd realize a major misunderstanding of science that currently hampers your understanding of the earth's climate system.

Let's make this (thought) experiment instead.  Assume you fly at a fixed point one light-minute above the sun's surface.  Sure, you'd be hit with radiation from the sun, right?  Now, I replace you with you likeness at the same place earlier occupied by you, only your likeness is ten times hotter than the sun.

According to your theory, the sun would no longer radiate into the direction of your likeness.  So, what happens to one minute's worth of the sun's radiation that was sent out when the sun still thought it was sending radiation towards a cooler object (you), but which now heads towards a much hotter object - your incredibly hot likeness (remember, you were one light-minute above the sun)?  Does the sun call back the radiation?


----------



## jc456 (May 5, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > why does it matter? The answer is that warm flows to cold and not vice versa. It is true physics. Testable as well. you post up the experiment that shows an ice cube warming a pan at room temperature.
> ...


Hahahaha Hahahaha, dude way too hard. Relax, you don't have it. I knew it.

Now, take an ice cube and hold it in your hand, does your hand get warm or cold?


----------



## SSDD (May 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> What does your blog theory say about the 400 W/m2 continually radiating from the earth?



Not my theory...do feel free to read what it says about everything if you like, not that I would expect one of the AGW faithful to get anything out of it regardless of the fact that it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even predict the temperature of earth without a fudge factor...

https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/unified_theory_of_climate_poster_nikolov_zeller.pdf
http://www.wcrp-climate.org/conference2011/posters/C7/C7_Nikolov_M15A.pdf



Wuwei said:


> So what happens when you remove the detector. The back radiation ceases?



The more sensible question is what happens when you warm the detector....answer, it stops measuring radiation incoming from the atmosphere....if it is no longer measuring radiation coming from the atmosphere, what do you think is happening?...What makes more sense?.....the detector breaks and stops working at temperatures higher than the atmosphere.......or the atmosphere simply doesn't radiate to the warmer object....you can swing the uncooled detector towards warmer objects and immediately it starts detecting radiation again...so clearly the instrument is working....must be your hypothesis that isn't working.



Wuwei said:


> Others have presented the observed, measured, empirical evidence of back scatter in this thread. Go back and read it. But don't forget that 100% of all physicists believe that quantum mechanics shows that thermal radiation from a body at any temperature always strikes any other object in the radiation path no matter what temperature they both are. You cannot prove otherwise. To even think otherwise is ridiculous. If you want to believe in smart photons that don't like to hit warmer objects, then you are not talking about science. Period.



No...crick produced observed, measured, quantified evidence of energy moving from a radiator that is warmer than -80F to a detector cooled to a temperature lower than -80F...that is not back scatter....that is energy moving from a warmer radiator to a cooler radiator...he hasn't shown any measurement of back scatter at ambient temperature...  So the fact remains that zero observed, measured, quantified evidence has been shown that supports the A in AGW...

If back scatter is physical fact, why can it not be observed and measured at ambient temperature....the claim is that more than 300 wm2 of it is coming in...why can't it be measured unless the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere?


----------



## Olde Europe (May 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Hahahaha Hahahaha, dude way too hard. Relax, you don't have it. I knew it.
> 
> Now, take an ice cube and hold it in your hand, does your hand get warm or cold?



You aren't really that much into answering questions, are you?

Moreover, time again watching folks burst into maniacal laughter, I find they are laughing at either their own ignorance or the hilarious consequences of the false beliefs they nevertheless staunchly hold, unwittingly.

Of course, my hand would get cold(er).  So, we see, you have a firm grasp of heat flux.  That's good, as far as it goes, as it is the dominant mode of energy transfer between close-contact bodies of different temperatures.  Yet, when we're discussing the world's energy budget, we're talking overwhelmingly about radiative flux.  The two concepts differ in important respects, for instance: While the former mode of energy transmission follows the heat gradient, the latter is a result of (warm, that is, above 0°K) bodies radiating heat into every direction.  If you weren't warmed (!) by the radiative flux of that 70°F atmosphere surrounding you (all else equal), you'd probably freeze to death in short order, even though your body should show something like 100°F.  Imagine that!

You could help your understanding of the earth's energy budget, and, indeed, AGW, a great deal if you tried to wrap your head around radiative flux.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Hahahaha Hahahaha, dude way too hard. Relax, you don't have it. I knew it.
> ...


I could help myself by getting evidence that such radiation actually exists.  I answered your question, you didn't like my answer.  

now if you took that same ice cube and held it three inches above your hand, would your hand warm up or cool down?  Now they are radiating right?  Does my hand stay warmer longer?


----------



## Wuwei (May 6, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Not my theory...do feel free to read what it says about everything if you like, not that I would expect one of the AGW faithful to get anything out of it regardless of the fact that it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even predict the temperature of earth without a fudge factor...
> 
> https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/unified_theory_of_climate_poster_nikolov_zeller.pdf
> http://www.wcrp-climate.org/conference2011/posters/C7/C7_Nikolov_M15A.pdf



Thank you for the references. The whole theory of Nikolov and Zeller relies on adiabatic heating. That occurs as a reversible process when *work is done.* According to the authors the work is the gravitational force. In experiments the adiabatic process must take place before any heat can dissipate otherwise it is not reversible. If it's done quickly there is not enough time for any energy to transfer as heat to or from the system.

Here is an example: your hand pump gets hot when pumping up a tire due to adiabatic compression. If you wait, heat will dissipate and the pump will cool down. At that point the process is no longer adiabatic.

In order for the atmosphere to be in an adiabatic condition. All the air must start out, say, a few hundred miles above the earth. When the air falls to the earth it will be compressed most at the lowest levels and be the hottest. At higher levels the pressure will be less and the atmosphere will be cooler according to the ideal gas law. That is the temperature profile the authors are referring to, and as they claim, is similar to the profile of planets.

However, what the authors fail to include is the fact that without external energy, the atmosphere will eventually even out in temperature after the initial adiabatic heat is dissipated. Our atmosphere does not do that. The reason of course is that there is thermal energy continually being pumped into the system from the sun; the earth warms; and radiates LWIR, etc.

That is the reason for my remark, "_what does your blog theory say about the 400 w/m2 continually radiating from the earth._"



SSDD said:


> The more sensible question is what happens when you warm the detector....answer, it stops measuring radiation incoming from the atmosphere....if it is no longer measuring radiation coming from the atmosphere, what do you think is happening?...What makes more sense?.....the detector breaks and stops working at temperatures higher than the atmosphere.......or the atmosphere simply doesn't radiate to the warmer object....you can swing the uncooled detector towards warmer objects and immediately it starts detecting radiation again...so clearly the instrument is working....must be your hypothesis that isn't working.
> 
> No...crick produced observed, measured, quantified evidence of energy moving from a radiator that is warmer than -80F to a detector cooled to a temperature lower than -80F...that is not back scatter....that is energy moving from a warmer radiator to a cooler radiator...he hasn't shown any measurement of back scatter at ambient temperature... So the fact remains that zero observed, measured, quantified evidence has been shown that supports the A in AGW...
> 
> If back scatter is physical fact, why can it not be observed and measured at ambient temperature....the claim is that more than 300 wm2 of it is coming in...why can't it be measured unless the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere?


Thermal detectors are cooled to prevent the detector housing from interfering with the measurement. The detector will still work if it's temperature is above the ambient temperature, but the temperature of the housing must be subtracted out to get the desired reading.

The original CMB detector in 1964 was at 4 deg K. It successfully used a method to subtract the 4 deg housing interference to get the 2.7 deg K CMB. Today's detectors can drop to much lower temperatures so that the mechanism for subtraction is no longer needed.


----------



## Wuwei (May 6, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Not my theory...do feel free to read what it says about everything if you like, not that I would expect one of the AGW faithful to get anything out of it regardless of the fact that it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even predict the temperature of earth without a fudge factor...
> 
> https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/unified_theory_of_climate_poster_nikolov_zeller.pdf
> http://www.wcrp-climate.org/conference2011/posters/C7/C7_Nikolov_M15A.pdf


One further note. Although that concept was picked up in many blogs, your first reference is a "poster presentation." At conferences most papers are orally presented to an audience. However, some papers that aren't accepted for oral presentation are allowed a poster presentation. Those are sort of like "science fair" story boards set up in the lobby of the conference center. During breaks the authors generally stand around their poster set-up and field questions. Your second reference is no doubt exactly the poster in three sections set up on a table.


----------



## mamooth (May 6, 2016)

SSDD said:


> The more sensible question is what happens when you warm the detector....answer, it stops measuring radiation incoming from the atmosphere



Absolutely false. Anyone can now buy thermal cameras that require no cooling. Cooling just reduces the electronics noise that would otherwise swamp the signal, but with enough processing power, there are ways to filter that noise out, which is exactly what the new cameras do.

So, that kook claim of your is conclusively debunked, and with it, your whole argument collapses. Thanks for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> I could help myself by getting evidence that such radiation actually exists. I answered your question, you didn't like my answer.
> 
> now if you took that same ice cube and held it three inches above your hand, would your hand warm up or cool down? Now they are radiating right? Does my hand stay warmer longer?



You didn't answer any one of my questions.

I see, you're now seemingly into convection as another way of energy transport.  Fine, we're still not quite there, though.  Really, take a closer look at radiative flux, and realize that both hand and ice cube are radiating, which doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and neither does it contradict the fact that warmer bodies radiate more, and neither does that mean there isn't a net radiative flux from hand to ice cube.  They're still emitting energy, both.


----------



## SSDD (May 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Not my theory...do feel free to read what it says about everything if you like, not that I would expect one of the AGW faithful to get anything out of it regardless of the fact that it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even predict the temperature of earth without a fudge factor...
> ...



The atmosphere would only achieve equilibrium if it were a static column of air...the atmosphere is the farthest thing from static...the work of pressure never stops and the heat keeps bleeding into space...



SSDD said:


> The more sensible question is what happens when you warm the detector....answer, it stops measuring radiation incoming from the atmosphere....if it is no longer measuring radiation coming from the atmosphere, what do you think is happening?...What makes more sense?.....the detector breaks and stops working at temperatures higher than the atmosphere.......or the atmosphere simply doesn't radiate to the warmer object....you can swing the uncooled detector towards warmer objects and immediately it starts detecting radiation again...so clearly the instrument is working....must be your hypothesis that isn't working.
> 
> No...crick produced observed, measured, quantified evidence of energy moving from a radiator that is warmer than -80F to a detector cooled to a temperature lower than -80F...that is not back scatter....that is energy moving from a warmer radiator to a cooler radiator...he hasn't shown any measurement of back scatter at ambient temperature... So the fact remains that zero observed, measured, quantified evidence has been shown that supports the A in AGW...
> 
> If back scatter is physical fact, why can it not be observed and measured at ambient temperature....the claim is that more than 300 wm2 of it is coming in...why can't it be measured unless the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere?





Wuwei said:


> Thermal detectors are cooled to prevent the detector housing from interfering with the measurement. The detector will still work if it's temperature is above the ambient temperature, but the temperature of the housing must be subtracted out to get the desired reading.



Tell yourself that all you like....if there were in fact, 300+ wm2 of energy radiating from the atmosphere, you would not need to worry about the detector housing interfering with the measurement...instruments certainly don't need to be cooled to measure the piddling (by comparison) 161wm2 of radiation coming in from the sun...  the instruments must be cooled to a temperature lower than that of the target radiator so that the energy can move from the warmer radiator to the cooler instrument.



Wuwei said:


> The original CMB detector in 1964 was at 4 deg K. It successfully used a method to subtract the 4 deg housing interference to get the 2.7 deg K CMB. Today's detectors can drop to much lower temperatures so that the mechanism for subtraction is no longer needed.



Radio waves have no temperature....orignally CMB was detected via resonance radio signal...in order to detect actual CMB you must have an instrument cooled to about 3k


----------



## SSDD (May 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Not my theory...do feel free to read what it says about everything if you like, not that I would expect one of the AGW faithful to get anything out of it regardless of the fact that it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even predict the temperature of earth without a fudge factor...
> ...




So you don't like the format....ok....got any specific comments on the fact that it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even predict the temperature here on planet earth without a fudge factor?


----------



## SSDD (May 6, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The more sensible question is what happens when you warm the detector....answer, it stops measuring radiation incoming from the atmosphere
> ...



Idiot....thermal cameras work via temperature measurements of an internal thermopile...and before you bring them up, FLIR cameras that are able to detect bodies that are cooler than the air surrounding them are in fact, cooled....


----------



## Wuwei (May 6, 2016)

SSDD said:


> The atmosphere would only achieve equilibrium if it were a static column of air...the atmosphere is the farthest thing from static...the work of pressure never stops and the heat keeps bleeding into space...


You have a bit of contradictory confusion. Yes, about the static column. Yes, the atmosphere is far from static. But that is my point of why Nikolov et.al is wrong. They assume an adiabatic process which is far from correct since the atmosphere is chaotic between altitude levels and any possible adiabatic process would have died out eons ago.



SSDD said:


> Tell yourself that all you like....if there were in fact, 300+ wm2 of energy radiating from the atmosphere, you would not need to worry about the detector housing interfering with the measurement...instruments certainly don't need to be cooled to measure the piddling (by comparison) 161wm2 of radiation coming in from the sun... the instruments must be cooled to a temperature lower than that of the target radiator so that the energy can move from the warmer radiator to the cooler instrument.


Radiation can move anywhere.



SSDD said:


> Radio waves have no temperature....orignally CMB was detected via resonance radio signal...in order to detect actual CMB you must have an instrument cooled to about 3k


Nevertheless Penzias and Wilson did measure 2.7K in 1964 with an instrument cooled to 4K. That is a measurable, repeatable, observable experiment that showed that a detector that is warmer than the source will work.

You are right that radio waves have no temperature. Neither do photons that carry the visible and UV from the hot sun. That EM energy is just the medium for exchange of energy from one body to another. A high power laser can melt steel, but the narrow frequency band has no temperature of it's own either.

So, as you say, if radio waves have no temperature, why do you think they are forbidden from hitting anything at any other temperature? Surely those EM waves that have lost all information of their origin have no restrictions except to move in the original direction until absorbed. Freely moving photons no longer have a connection with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

This is the connection of radiation physics with the 2nd law: a hotter body will emit more EM energy than a colder body. It follows that the net energy flow will always be from the hotter body to the colder one, just as the second law says.


----------



## Wuwei (May 6, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The more sensible question is what happens when you warm the detector....answer, it stops measuring radiation incoming from the atmosphere
> ...


Right you are.

_PHOTONIC FRONTIERS: ROOM-TEMPERATURE IR IMAGING: Microbolometer arrays enable uncooled infrared camera_​
_An attractive alternative for such LWIR applications is detecting the absorption or radiant heat rather than photons. Radiant heat sensors, called bolometers, have long been used for IR measurements. Now arrays of many thermally isolated microbolometers can record images in the thermal IR. Crucially, microbolometers do not require cooling, so this reduces their cost, size, and complexity._​
http://www.laserfocusworld.com/arti...r-arrays-enable-uncooled-infrared-camera.html

This totally screws up SSDD's ill-conceived objection about detecting "resonance frequencies". Bolometers directly detect heat, not individual radio frequencies.


----------



## IanC (May 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




A more realistic experiment would be to close your eyes in a heated room on a cold night. Put your flat hand close to the wall but not touching. As you circle the room I guarantee most people could pick out the outside wall(s). Why? Because the amount of radiant energy being received by the hand would be different from cooler outside walls than the warmer inner walls.

Likewise, the same type of experiment could pick out warmer southern facing walls on a hot summer day.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


I love it.  Some people will believe anything.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...


that's no different than what I stated.  Take the ice cube and hold it three inches from your hand.  Does your hand get warmer?  Nope. So it's still comes down to, the cooler atmosphere does not warm the surface.


----------



## IanC (May 6, 2016)

SSDD doesn't seem to realize that any atmosphere is only there because of stored solar energy. 

All heatsinks cause increased temperatures at some point in the system as energy input moves to energy output.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD doesn't seem to realize that any atmosphere is only there because of stored solar energy.
> 
> All heatsinks cause increased temperatures at some point in the system as energy input moves to energy output.


we'd burn up if it weren't for the cooler atmosphere acting as the heat sink.  You do know that heat sinks remove heat right?


----------



## IanC (May 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




The Sun heats the surface, the atmosphere changes the equilibrium as to how warm the surface gets from that solar input.

As I have repeatedly said. You are arguing that just because the back radiation is not doing the actual warming that is incapable of affecting the surface temperature. It can and does.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


and yet there is no evidence of that.

Again, hold an ice cube three inches from your hand, will your hand become warmer?


----------



## IanC (May 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD doesn't seem to realize that any atmosphere is only there because of stored solar energy.
> ...




You are not thinking this through. The moon receives the same insulation yet the average temperature is lower than the Earth.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


sure I am.  I know that something cold will not cause something warmer to become warmer.  I can prove it, test it.  All I'm asking is if you all believe it will warm it, show the experiment that proves it.  I gave you mine and so far you haven't answered yes or no.


----------



## IanC (May 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




If the ice cube is shielding the hand from something colder, then yes, the ice cube would result in a warmer hand. An Igloo is an imperfect example.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I disagree, the hand won't get warmer, it just won't get cold.  The igloo acts as a wall.  A heat source or blanket items would still be needed to survive.  Warmer no.  not cold yes.


----------



## IanC (May 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




No, you are not thinking this through. The Earth is not a static object. It has a heat source, the Sun. Adding an insulating atmosphere that impedes energy loss to space affects the equilibrium temperature at the surface.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Oh, I agree with the fact that the sun will heat the earth and that the colder vacum of space can't get in thanks to the greenhouse gases, but the earth doesn't get warmer than the heating source the sun supplies. The heat rises causing the lower level atmosphere to keep the cold from coming in.  That's it. There is no evidence that it regenerates heat back to the surface.  In fact, the physics shows heat will rise only, no proof it radiates back, it isn't provable. Nor has any experiment been able to recreate that action.  It is but a belief.

BTW, it is why when the sun source is gone, it gets cooler on the surface, there is no longer a heating source.  Therefore we need heaters in our homes.


----------



## IanC (May 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




In this case, the body needs to maintain a core temperature. It burns food stores to do this. If it loses less heat to the environment then it needs less food. 

If the body always burned the same amount of food, then yes it would be warmer or cooler according to the surrounding temperature. Clothes also affect body temp by changing the equilibrium of heat movement. The atmosphere is the equivalent of clothes.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


agree, except it doesn't make it warmer.  It merely keeps the existing warm there. one would eventually freeze if there wasn't another heat source.


----------



## IanC (May 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




You are confusing energy with heat. Energy flows in all directions, heat is a more complicated notion of net energy flowing from warm to cool. The atmospheric doesn't send heat to the surface (except inversions) but it is always sending energy back.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


*always sending energy back.*

in the form of?


----------



## IanC (May 6, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




IR photons. Every object emits radiation according to its temperature. Whether it is in the direction of another object that is warmer, cooler or the same temperature. Basic physics. The molecules have no control over the creation or direction because it is formed by random molecular collisions.


----------



## mamooth (May 6, 2016)

I think I'll repost this. Both SSDD and jc have seen it before, and they've both simply refused to address it at all.

Here's another way to show backradiation in action ...

The average surface area of an adult male human is 1.9 m^2.

Since some parts of your body radiate right back into the other parts, let's say the surface area radiating to the world is 1.5 m^2. You can set it at a little more or less, it won't matter for purposes of this example.

Skin temperature is about 35C/95F, or 308K.

IR power radiated out of a person = (surface area) * (S-B constant) * (T^4)

If you run the numbers, that comes out around 800 watts. Over a day, that's 19 kw*hrs, or 16,000 Calories.

If backradiation didn't exist, all of those 16,000 Calories would have to fueled by food that people ate. Even more than that, since heat is usually also conducting away from a human body, but we'll just forget about conduction for this example.

However, people only eat around 2,000 Calories a day. And yet they don't freeze to death from radiating all their body heat away.

Why? Backradiation. The backradiation from the environment is constantly radiating into each person, and each person absorbs that radiation and then radiates it back out. Each person absorbs 14,000 Calories of backradiation each day, so they only have to eat 2,000 Calories to make up the balance.

Another example ...

Inside at 68F, you're comfortable.

Outside in the same clothing at 68F, at night (so no direct solar radiation) and in still air, you'll start getting chilly.

Why? Inside, the walls and ceiling are radiating at 68F. Outside, half of your radiating environment is a much colder sky, so you have much less backradiation warming you.


----------



## Wuwei (May 6, 2016)

mamooth said:


> I think I'll repost this........... .


That is an excellent example. I always noticed that outside felt colder than inside at the same temperature, but I never wondered why.

Anyone with a grade school education should be able to understand that.


----------



## SSDD (May 7, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > I think I'll repost this........... .
> ...



Grab yourself a solar oven....it is a parabolic reflector with a focal point at which one can cook....put a thermometer at the focal point, and a thermometer a few feet away from the reflector...point it at clear sky away from the sun and watch the temperature drop below the ambient temperature....take it out on a clear evening when the ambient temperature will not be above 45 degrees and won't drop below 40...point it at clear sky and hang a bag of water at the focal point....come back in a few hours and note the ice that has formed while the ambient temperature was well above the freezing point of water....

If back radiation exists, why then, does the temperature at the focal point of the reflector drop below the ambient temperature when it is pointed at clear sky that is, according to you and yours, chock full of CO2 back radiating energy and warming the earth? 

Actual observation there...not the result of mathematical models and hypotheses  or mind exercises....but actual observation of objects not warming, but instead, cooling below ambient temperature when pointed at clear sky and ice forming at temperatures well above freezing when, according to you and your pseudoscience, the water is being bathed with warming back radiation from CO2.  

  If you don't have access to a solar oven, I can point you towards a site with instructions to build one for less than $30 or from scrap material for that matter.


----------



## SSDD (May 7, 2016)

mamooth said:


> I think I'll repost this. Both SSDD and jc have seen it before, and they've both simply refused to address it at all.
> 
> Here's another way to show backradiation in action ...
> 
> ...



Actually you idiot, it is radiation coming up from the ground and from the heat generated by atmospheric pressure, and our clothing which holds air warmed by our bodies....  There is no back radiation warming anything....grab yourself a parabolic reflector as described above and point it at clear sky and see the back ration not happening while the temperature at the focal point of the reflector cools to a temperature 10 or 12 degrees below the ambient temperature.


----------



## Wuwei (May 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


> If back radiation exists, why then, does the temperature at the focal point of the reflector drop below the ambient temperature when it is pointed at clear sky that is, according to you and yours, chock full of CO2 back radiating energy and warming the earth?
> 
> Actual observation there...not the result of mathematical models and hypotheses or mind exercises....but actual observation of objects not warming, but instead, cooling below ambient temperature when pointed at clear sky and ice forming at temperatures well above freezing when, according to you and your pseudoscience, the water is being bathed with warming back radiation from CO2.


So it cools down only 10 or 12 degrees at the focal point. That's disappointing... If there is no back radiation, why doesn't it cool down by 300 K to near absolute zero - the temperature of outer space. The cooling by radiation to space is what sneaks between absorption bands of the GHG's. The back-radiation keeps the focal point from going anywhere near absolute zero. Only 10 or 12 degrees. Doesn't prove anything about back-radiation.

As far as Mamooth's insight, you are right about the clothes. Why don't you try standing in the street stark naked. That would remove any discrepancies on the effect of clothes.


----------



## IanC (May 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...




As usual, there is a simple answer to your conundrum. The radiation from the atmosphere (and surface) is diffuse. That is why a solar oven is more effective as an oven than a cooler. The Sun's rays are collimated, and can easily be collected and focused. The oven only collects atmospheric radiation in a specific orientation, which is only a small fraction of the total.

If you turned the parabolic oven upsidedown you would also find that the temperature at the focal point went down because all the focal radiation escapes but only a portion of the surface radiation is available to replace it.


----------



## mamooth (May 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Grab yourself a solar oven....it is a parabolic reflector with a focal point at which one can cook....put a thermometer at the focal point, and a thermometer a few feet away from the reflector...point it at clear sky away from the sun and watch the temperature drop below the ambient temperature....take it out on a clear evening when the ambient temperature will not be above 45 degrees and won't drop below 40...point it at clear sky and hang a bag of water at the focal point....come back in a few hours and note the ice that has formed while the ambient temperature was well above the freezing point of water....
> 
> If back radiation exists, why then, does the temperature at the focal point of the reflector drop below the ambient temperature when it is pointed at clear sky that is, according to you and yours, chock full of CO2 back radiating energy and warming the earth



To expands on Ian's correct explanation, whatever object you put in the center is sort of like a point source at the focal point. The energy it radiates in all directions strikes the parabolic mirror, and is all bounced out of the oven. The backradiation, being diffuse, is not focused by the parabolic mirror. So, energy goes out from the focal point, little energy comes in, temperature drops.



> Actual observation there...



And the observation is 100% consistent with how backradiation works.


----------



## SSDD (May 7, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Grab yourself a solar oven....it is a parabolic reflector with a focal point at which one can cook....put a thermometer at the focal point, and a thermometer a few feet away from the reflector...point it at clear sky away from the sun and watch the temperature drop below the ambient temperature....take it out on a clear evening when the ambient temperature will not be above 45 degrees and won't drop below 40...point it at clear sky and hang a bag of water at the focal point....come back in a few hours and note the ice that has formed while the ambient temperature was well above the freezing point of water....
> ...



How much is the thermometer radiating vs so called back radiation?  You are a blithering idiot hairball....the whole purpose of a parabolic reflector is to collect, and concentrate and focus diffuse energy....if back radiation existed the dish would collect, concentrate, and focus it upon the thermometer at the focal point and warm it...instead, you see the thermometer cool in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics....you can't make a parabolic reflector large enough to catch and focus back radiation because it does not exist...


----------



## mamooth (May 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


> How much is the thermometer radiating vs so called back radiation?



That question might make sense in your kook reality, but it makes no sense anywhere else.



> You are a blithering idiot hairball....the whole purpose of a parabolic reflector is to collect, and concentrate and focus diffuse energy....



So, we can add "optics" to the list of topics that you fail at hilariously.

Parabolic reflectors do _not_ focus diffuse energy. The whole point of making them is so they _don't_ do that.

Parabolic reflectors  focus _parallel_ energy, such as that coming from a distant point source. Or, in broadcast mode, they take energy from a point source at the focal point and send it out in a focused parallel beam.



> if back radiation existed the dish would collect, concentrate, and focus it upon the thermometer at the focal point and warm it...instead, you see the thermometer cool in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics....you can't make a parabolic reflector large enough to catch and focus back radiation because it does not exist...



Only a moron would claim diffuse energy is focused. In most cases, that would defeat the entire purpose of a parabolic reflector.

If, for example, you're using a satellite dish, you want it focusing the parallel energy coming down from the satellite, and not focusing anything else. You want signal, not noise. If the dish focused all of diffuse energy coming into it, it would just be gathering massive amounts of noise, that would overwhelm the signal, and the dish would be useless.


----------



## IanC (May 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Good grief, you're stupid. Most people learn when their mistakes are pointed out, in detail. But you are just obstinately ignorant.

You make it more difficult for honest Skeptics to get their position out when you broadcast bullshit.


----------



## Wuwei (May 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


> ...the whole purpose of a parabolic reflector is to collect, and concentrate and focus diffuse energy...


Some of the physics you don't understand is complex. But a parabolic reflector is high school science. No wonder you don't understand how a parabolic reflector works in the CMB experiment.


----------



## SSDD (May 7, 2016)

mamooth said:


> So, we can add "optics" to the list of topics that you fail at hilariously.



Sorry hairball...I happen to have collector tubes in my roof that bring sunlight into the house and oddly enough, they contain parabolic reflectors that collect diffuse light as they can not be pointed south...  the literature makes a point of stating that the reflectors collect diffuse light....sorry hairball...you lose again...


----------



## SSDD (May 7, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



And still....not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence to support what you believe in, while every observation ever made supports my position..


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 7, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



A colder object can not warm a warmer object.. The atmosphere, being colder, cannot warm the surface.

The IR from the atmosphere does not posses the ability or mass to warm the surface, it can however slow heat release to space.  The only thing our atmosphere can do is slow how fast heat travels upward and towards cooler objects.

The major problem with the warmer hypothesis is the water vapor, which is not slowed by CO2 or the atmosphere.  The convection cycle has speed up in the last thirty or so years we have been watching it. One observation just recently showed the Hadley Cells have increased their cycle speeds by 1/6 causing cloud formations to increase towards the poles and at higher altitudes.

Not only has the albedo of the clouds reflected energy but the convective cycles have released more heat. This speeding up appears to be directly related to solar cycles and magnetic flux from the sun.

The last two years we have begun to see a reduction in Hadley Cell size, indicating the atmosphere is now cooling in correlation with solar output.

IR photons are not heat, CO2 does not warm at all, and only the excited particles, photons cause, create warmth. The absence of a troposphereic hot spot proves there is no heat retention in our atmosphere as defined by the CAGW hypothesis.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So, we can add "optics" to the list of topics that you fail at hilariously.
> ...


















Skylight Tube Low-Profile Tubular Skylight for Easy, Versatile Daylighting

You mean like these? Sorry, idiot child, but that is not a parabolic reflector.


----------



## jc456 (May 7, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


And yet you still can't prove back radiation. Why not?


----------



## jc456 (May 7, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


So all that IR with all that energy just travels from sky to surface, warms the surface, but nothing in between. The sun warms the air and the surface. Has to warm what passes through if it's supposed to warn the surface. And, they can't prove it. DOH!


----------



## Wuwei (May 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Sorry hairball...I happen to have collector tubes in my roof that bring sunlight into the house and oddly enough, they contain parabolic reflectors that collect diffuse light as they can not be pointed south... *the literature makes a point of stating that the reflectors collect diffuse light*....sorry hairball...you lose again...


No wonder you are so naive in science. You get your physics education from product literature.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 8, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry hairball...I happen to have collector tubes in my roof that bring sunlight into the house and oddly enough, they contain parabolic reflectors that collect diffuse light as they can not be pointed south... *the literature makes a point of stating that the reflectors collect diffuse light*....sorry hairball...you lose again...
> ...



The sales pitch by a skylight company trumps physics.  The most amazing things happen in Up-Is-Downistan.


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> A colder object can not warm a warmer object.. The atmosphere, being colder, cannot warm the surface.
> 
> The IR from the atmosphere does not posses the ability or mass to warm the surface, it can however slow heat release to space.  The only thing our atmosphere can do is slow how fast heat travels upward and towards cooler objects.



CO2 however does not further impede the movement of energy out of the atmosphere...were there no radiative gasses in the atmosphere, the only means of moving energy from the surface to the upper atmosphere where it is then radiated out into space would be conduction and convection...which are slower than radiation...radiative gasses are holes in the blanket...not the material itself...it is just silly to suggest that radiative gasses impede the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself.


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry hairball...I happen to have collector tubes in my roof that bring sunlight into the house and oddly enough, they contain parabolic reflectors that collect diffuse light as they can not be pointed south... *the literature makes a point of stating that the reflectors collect diffuse light*....sorry hairball...you lose again...
> ...




I suppose you aren't aware that sunlight itself is diffuse above or below 30 degrees and still, parabolic reflectors can concentrate that light and boil water or start fires....but back radiation can't be collected or measured till the instrument is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...which means that it is not back radiation at all.


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Guess you are also unaware that sunlight itself is diffuse above or below 30 degrees of latitude...guess you think that parabolic reflectors don't work except near the equator...  set yourself a pot of water out in the sun and see how quickly that diffuse light boils it.


----------



## mamooth (May 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Guess you are also unaware that sunlight itself is diffuse above or below 30 degrees of latitude...



Everyone was unaware of it, because it's yet another of your hilariously stupid fictions.

But please, amuse everyone. Give us the scientific backing for your very peculiar "sunlight is diffuse beyond 30 degrees" theory. What magical thing happens at 30 degrees to make the sunlight diffuse?


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Guess you are also unaware that sunlight itself is diffuse above or below 30 degrees of latitude...
> ...



No hairball...it seems that only you were unaware of it...

Solar Power - Advantages and Disadvantages - Sustainable Development Information

clip:   Because sunlight is diffuse, a large number of solar panels are needed to produce adequate amounts of electricity, necessitating both expense and space.

Solar fuels via artificial photosynthesis.  - PubMed - NCBI

clip:  *Abstract  *Because sunlight is diffuse and intermittent, substantial use of solar energy to meet humanity's needs will probably require energy storage in dense, transportable media via chemical bonds

Synthetic Biology for Fuels - Science in the News

clip:   The total solar energy falling on the earth exceeds the energy humans consume globally by several thousand fold [1]. However, the two main challenges of harvesting this energy are its diffuse nature and the low efficiencies in capturing and storing it. Sunlight is diffuse in two ways – it is distributed across a wide range of wavelengths (a property of light manifested through the different colors of light, which carry different amounts of energy), and is also spread across the surface of the earth.

http://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/FOCUS_ProgramOverview.pdf

clip:  
A third challenge is presented by the angular distribution of the sunlight reaching Earth’s surface: even the direct component of sunlight has a finite angular width of about 5 degrees,16 and a significant fraction of sunlight is diffuse in every geographic area, reaching Earth’s surface only after scattering in the atmosphere. 

Space Future - Introduction - Energy From Space

clip:   However, sunlight is diffuse and not available continuously at the Earth's surface. So one additional possibility is to collect solar energy 24 hours per day in space, and transmit it as microwave beams to receivers on Earth.

InterAcademy Council  - 3.3 Non-biomass renewables

clip:  As with all energy supply options, renewable energy technologies also have drawbacks, many of them related to the fact that the resource being tapped (e.g., wind or sunlight) is diffuse and typically has low power density

and I could go on and on with references stating that sunlight is diffuse....sorry that you didn't know...so again, why doesn't that thermometer at the focal point of the parabolic dish warm when pointed at open sky and is bathed with all that claimed back radiation?....it certainly heats up when pointed at the sun and according to you lot the energy coming in from the sun is less than half of what is coming back as a result of back radiation.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > A colder object can not warm a warmer object.. The atmosphere, being colder, cannot warm the surface.
> ...



CO2 has no ability to retard heat loss by itself, infact higher concentrations of it in our atmosphere appear to speed up radiative cooling by reducing the other gases, which can hold heat, proportionally.


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Like I said...the atmosphere may act as a metaphorical blanket, but CO2 and all radiative gasses except water vapor are holes in that blanket..


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



This is why they use directional aiming units on big solar projects, keeping the panels at right angles too incoming solar radiation.  This increases their collection to about 9 hours a day rather than 4-6 hours.  A 360W panel operating at just 30% is about 100W. A 260W loss over rated potential. 

This is easily measured by placing an amp meter on the outputs of a panel and rotating the panel from right angle to 60 degrees and watching how the output falls. This is simple high school physics.


----------



## mamooth (May 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> No hairball...it seems that only you were unaware of it...



So first, you're running from your kook claim that sunlight magically becomes diffuse only when beyond 30 degrees.

And second, you're using a blatant equivocation fallacy to back your new claims. That is, you're deliberately confusing two different meanings of "diffuse".

Meaning A -- "not parallel, coming in from all directions."

Meaning B -- "not highly concentrated, spread out"

You declare since sunlight qualifies as "diffuse" under meaning  "B", it also qualifies as "diffuse" under meaning "A". Bzzzt, invalid, totally dishonest, you fail.

Stop trying to claim rays of direct sunlight aren't parallel. You're plunging to new depths of dishonesty and stupidity here.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 8, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No hairball...it seems that only you were unaware of it...
> ...


You dont have a dam clue do you?


----------



## mamooth (May 8, 2016)

Billy, be specific. Are you also jumping on SSDD's moron wagon and specifically claiming that incoming direct sunlight isn't traveling in parallel rays?


----------



## jc456 (May 8, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Billy, be specific. Are you also jumping on SSDD's moron wagon and specifically claiming that incoming direct sunlight isn't traveling in parallel rays?


I guess you don't know solar panels are positioned for a reason. WOW


----------



## Wuwei (May 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


What your references say is that *sunlight* is diffuse. They are referring to the fact that the sky is blue everywhere because of the sun. That is what diffuse means in that context. One reference also says that the sun itself is diffuse. That means the direct sun energy is spread out over the ball at around 5 degrees. There is quite a difference in the energy per solid angle in the blue diffuse section versus the sun surface.

Parabolic reflectors could start a fire when aimed at the sun no matter where it is in the sky. But if the reflector is aimed at the diffuse part (ie blue sky) there is not enough energy to start a fire.

Again you are wrong about back radiation not being observed. Thermal radiation has in fact been measured by detectors that are warmer than the source. Every scientist knows that.


----------



## Wuwei (May 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Like I said...the atmosphere may act as a metaphorical blanket, but CO2 and all radiative gasses except water vapor are holes in that blanket..


What do you mean by radiative gasses. CO2 diffuses radiation at it resonant wavelengths. That means at those wavelengths GHGs are the blanket and the wavelengths not at resonance are the holes. If that is what you mean, then why do you think water vapor is an exception. It also diffuses IR radiation in the same way that all other GHGs diffuse radiation.


----------



## IanC (May 8, 2016)

Solar insulation is diffuse? Riiiight.

Try staring at that five degree yellow globe for a while, and tell me it's no different than any other patch of the sky.

Hahahaha


----------



## mamooth (May 8, 2016)

So 3 people here -- SSDD, Billy and jc -- are now all actually babbling that direct sunlight doesn't always come from the direction of the sun, and is instead "diffuse".

It's not so much that they're crazy. It's that they're narcissists who are psychologically incapable of admitting to making a mistake. They all know sunlight does indeed come from the sun. However, they've painted themselves into a corner. If they say sunlight comes from the sun, they have to admit to their previous mistake. So rather than admit they were stupid before, they've started digging down into a much deeper stupid hole.


----------



## Wuwei (May 8, 2016)

These guys and their diffuse radiation remind me of a quote by an ancient astronomer hundreds of years ago.
_"The moon is more important than the sun because the moon can illuminate the earth at night. The sun only appears in the daytime when it is light anyway. 
_​I'm trying to think who has more wisdom - those guys on this board, or the old astronomer.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 8, 2016)

mamooth said:


> So 3 people here -- SSDD, Billy and jc -- are now all actually babbling that direct sunlight doesn't always come from the direction of the sun, and is instead "diffuse".



Yeah... However, I have to admit I was surprised to discover how many concepts of "diffuse" there are (and that may not be the end of it).

Sunlight is in fact diffuse in that the sun (thankfully) isn't a laser; it radiates into all directions, and not in one concentrated beam.

Sunlight is further diffuse in that the energy radiated out is dispersed over a wide spectrum of wave lengths.

Sunlight is further diffuse in that the energy transmitted is spread over wide areas, not "concentrated" - as it is, say, in fossil fuels, which makes harvesting and using the sun's energy more of a challenge than is using FFs.

Sunlight is further - in part - diffuse in that it is scattered when traveling through atmosphere, which is why - unlike the situation on the moon - our shadows aren't pitch black.  Luckily, most of the sunlight arriving on the ground is not diffuse and it arrives within a very narrow bandwidth of directions, which is why it can be collected and focused.

So, reviewing the above-mentioned worthies' misunderstanding, I actually learned something today.


----------



## jc456 (May 8, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Post it


----------



## jc456 (May 8, 2016)

mamooth said:


> So 3 people here -- SSDD, Billy and jc -- are now all actually babbling that direct sunlight doesn't always come from the direction of the sun, and is instead "diffuse".
> 
> It's not so much that they're crazy. It's that they're narcissists who are psychologically incapable of admitting to making a mistake. They all know sunlight does indeed come from the sun. However, they've painted themselves into a corner. If they say sunlight comes from the sun, they have to admit to their previous mistake. So rather than admit they were stupid before, they've started digging down into a much deeper stupid hole.


Wrong, you didn't answer why the solar panels have to be a specific angle?


----------



## jc456 (May 8, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So 3 people here -- SSDD, Billy and jc -- are now all actually babbling that direct sunlight doesn't always come from the direction of the sun, and is instead "diffuse".
> ...


Uh oh


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 8, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So 3 people here -- SSDD, Billy and jc -- are now all actually babbling that direct sunlight doesn't always come from the direction of the sun, and is instead "diffuse".
> ...


Diffuse means its focal point is angle of incidence dependent. Power is lost as the angle of deflection increases.. Your AGW models do not deal with this just as you dont understand how this changes the energy balance of the earth.


----------



## IanC (May 8, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...




Do you have a Cliff Clavin app on your phone, or do you think up that nonsensical bafflegab by yourself?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 9, 2016)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...



You really dont know much about photon transmission.


----------



## mamooth (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Wrong, you didn't answer why the solar panels have to be a specific angle?



Because the non-diffuse sunlight is arriving at that angle.

It's not rocket science, and it's funny how you fail to understand such a simple thing. If sunlight was "diffuse", it would be arriving from every angle, and it wouldn't much matter what angle the panel was at. Reality really smacks down your insane theory.


----------



## mamooth (May 9, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Diffuse means its focal point is angle of incidence dependent.



I'm pretty certain nobody in the universe has ever used such a bizarre definition of "diffuse" before. Can you show us the reference you took it from?



> Power is lost as the angle of deflection increases..



Well, yes, but that has nothing to with "diffuse". It has to do with less photons striking the surface when you angle it away from perpendicular to the direction of the sunlight.



> Your AGW models do not deal with this just as you dont understand how this changes the energy balance of the earth.



Your whole dishonest argument here rests on the peculiarities of the English language, which assigns multiple definitions to "diffuse". If we were using a language that had a separate word for each definition, you'd have no argument, which means your argument is trash.

Here's a thought. Skip the word "diffuse". Just stick with the descriptions.

Backradiation comes from points scattered across the whole sky, so it can't be focused by a parabolic reflector.

Sunlight comes from a near-point source and arrives in parallel rays, so it can be focused by a parabolic reflector.

The solar oven can only focus parallel rays. It can focus sunlight. It can't focus backradiation, so almost no energy comes in when you point it at the empty sky. Meanwhile, the water placed at the focal point inside radiates in all directions, but that radiation is shaped by the reflector into a parallel beam that exits the oven. More energy goes out than in, so the water freezes.

Clearer now? Now, try to answer without deliberately confusing the issue by jumping between different definitions of "diffuse". Don't use that word at all.


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

So the topic of this thread is the lack of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the A in AGW....all the deflection in the world on all the possible topics is not going to make data that doesn't exist suddenly spring into existence...


----------



## mamooth (May 9, 2016)

No, the topic of this thread is how you pissed yourself and ran. Same as you always do. You're a truly epic level chickenshit.

Post #275. Address it. If humans have to radiate 16,000 Calories of IR a day and only eat 2,000 Calories a day, where does the extra 14,000 Calories of energy come from?

Hence, I prove backradiation. Hence, you squeal, deflect and run.


----------



## SSDD (May 10, 2016)

mamooth said:


> No, the topic of this thread is how you pissed yourself and ran. Same as you always do. You're a truly epic level chickenshit.
> 
> Post #275. Address it. If humans have to radiate 16,000 Calories of IR a day and only eat 2,000 Calories a day, where does the extra 14,000 Calories of energy come from?
> 
> Hence, I prove backradiation. Hence, you squeal, deflect and run.



I'm still here hairball...sitting on top of a huge heaping pile of no observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the A in AGW...And you didn't prove anything at all hairball...you provided yet another mind experiment which can not be observed, measured, or quantified at ambient temperature....as I said, there is absolutely no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...it is all assumption, mind experiment, and models...none of which can be observed, measured, or quantified at ambient temperature....

You guys claim measurements of back radiation but the measurements are made with instruments that have been cooled to temperatures lower than the atmosphere...how exactly do you call that back radiation...that is nothing more than energy moving from warm to cool...it is informative to see what passes for observed, measured, quantified data in your minds though...it goes a long way in explaining how it is that you have been so thoroughly fooled.


----------



## mamooth (May 10, 2016)

SSDD said:


> I'm still here hairball...



Until you can address me politely,  I'll be addressing you as "shitlicker", being how that so accurately describes the way you obtain your bogus cult pseudoscience.



> sitting on top of a huge heaping pile of no observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the A in AGW...



Yes, yes, you're not going to give up your pathological lying, because it's all you have now.

And you won't explain how humans can radiate 16,000 Calories a day while only eating 2,000 Calories. You won't point out where my calculations are wrong. You won't point out where the physics or problem setup is wrong. You're just flat out refusing to address it, because you know it debunks your crap. In other words, you're acting the same way you act on every issue.



> And you didn't prove anything at all hairball...you provided yet another mind experiment which can not be observed



So now you've upped your lunacy to claiming the Stephan-Boltzmann Law  is wrong. Is there any physics from the past two centuries you don't proudly deny?



> as I said, there is absolutely no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...it is all assumption, mind experiment, and models...none of which can be observed, measured, or quantified at ambient temperature....



And as we've pointed out, anyone can point a thermal camera at sky and directly measure the backradiation, which means you're obviously lying, and everyone knows it.



> You guys claim measurements of back radiation but the measurements are made with instruments that have been cooled to temperatures lower than the atmosphere...how exactly do you call that back radiation...that is nothing more than energy moving from warm to cool...



And again, those thermal cameras aren't cooled, which means you're obviously lying, and everyone knows it.



> it is informative to see what passes for observed, measured, quantified data in your minds though...it goes a long way in explaining how it is that you have been so thoroughly fooled.



Shitlicker, you're a coward and fraud. Everyone here knows you're a coward and fraud. What do you hope to accomplish with even more demonstrations of your cowardice and fraud?


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still here hairball...
> ...


funny stuff tooth.  everything in this you can't prove and the distraction to humans and calories, well off base.  can you say deflect?

The camera in the sky thingy, can you prove it is back radiation or merely a reading of temperature?  how can you prove such a thing? hmmmm dilemma for you.

Show me how CO2 emits, got one of those experiments yet?  Yep same old same old from a warmer intolerant.


----------



## mamooth (May 10, 2016)

jc456 said:


> The camera in the sky thingy, can you prove it is back radiation or merely a reading of temperature?  how can you prove such a thing?



Easy to prove it.

A. The thermal camera is determining the temperature of the sky.

B. It's not touching the sky, hence it's not reading temperature by conduction.

C. Hence, some information has be getting transmitted from the sky to the camera.

D. That information would be the photons being emitted by the sky.

E. That's backradiation.

If you've got a different theory of how temperature information gets from the sky to the camera, let everyone know, being that sort of groundbreaking new physics will guarantee you a Nobel Prize.


----------



## Wuwei (May 10, 2016)

SSDD said:


> the measurements are made with instruments that have been cooled to temperatures lower than the atmosphere...how exactly do you call that back radiation...that is nothing more than energy moving from warm to cool...


Of course the instrument is cooled. That makes the data more trustworthy - reduces noise and cuts the self radiation of the housing to the detector. The radiation was still downward and matched the spectra of the green house gasses. That is called back radiation. Thermal radiation goes in all directions. The downward part is called back radiation.


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > The camera in the sky thingy, can you prove it is back radiation or merely a reading of temperature?  how can you prove such a thing?
> ...


you have no idea how that works.  but thanks for the laugh.  where does the back radiation come from 100 ft 1 mile what is the distance from whence it came from?  Maybe it's just two feet in front of you.  LOL though.  wow.

BTW, I thought Ian said that IR doesn't have temperature?


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2016)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...





IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Until you can address me politely,  I'll be addressing you as "shitlicker"



Like that would bother me...I have horses, a couple of cows and various other animals sharing space with me...I am sure that I have kicked a pile or two in my lifetime...Interesting that you hold such distain for people who live close to the earth....not surprising, but interesting.


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > the measurements are made with instruments that have been cooled to temperatures lower than the atmosphere...how exactly do you call that back radiation...that is nothing more than energy moving from warm to cool...
> ...




No wuwei...it makes the data useless....there is nothing special about energy moving from a warmer object to a cooler object...we see it in the case of radiation from the sun striking the surface every day...without the benefit of cooled instruments....now energy moving from a cool object to a warm object would be very special indeed....but we never measure that happening because it doesn't...thinking that you have measured it when in fact, all you have been doing is measuring energy moving from a warmer object to the cooler instrument is what is known as fooling yourself with instrumentation....

You really do believe that the energy from the hot iron held above your hand radiating to your hand is back radiation don't you?....just because it is moving in a direction that you perceive as down?  You are that ignorant aren't you?


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2016)

SSDD said:


> No wuwei...it makes the data useless....there is nothing special about energy moving from a warmer object to a cooler object...we see it in the case of radiation from the sun striking the surface every day...without the benefit of cooled instruments....now energy moving from a cool object to a warm object would be very special indeed....but we never measure that happening because it doesn't...thinking that you have measured it when in fact, all you have been doing is measuring energy moving from a warmer object to the cooler instrument is what is known as fooling yourself with instrumentation....


You are right, but your statements are well-known and vacuous. Thermal energy cannot move spontaneously from a cold object to a hotter one. 

However radiation can move that way. It can move anywhere. Of course the total energy flow involving *radiation* requires that the cooler object will always gain more thermal *energy *by radiation than the hotter, ie the cooler object will warm. As it must to satisfy the second law of thermodynamics.


SSDD said:


> You really do believe that the energy from the hot iron held above your hand radiating to your hand is back radiation don't you?....just because it is moving in a direction that you perceive as down? You are that ignorant aren't you?


Are you that much of a liar? Go back and read the dialog.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 11, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Thermal energy cannot move spontaneously from a cold object to a hotter one.
> 
> However radiation can move that way. It can move anywhere.



Come on, radiation emerging from Object A, and having measured the temperature of Object A, then takes the temperature of its target (Object B), and upon comparison, realizes that Object B is hotter than Object A, chooses to fly around Object B, in order to avoid violating the SSDD-Law of Radiative Picky-ness.


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Thermal energy cannot move spontaneously from a cold object to a hotter one.
> ...


what is it you're saying are you saying that object B isn't radiating?  You can't even keep straight that all objects emit.  Why does heat rise?  Or does it?


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> Come on, radiation emerging from Object A, and having measured the temperature of Object A, then takes the temperature of its target (Object B), and upon comparison, realizes that Object B is hotter than Object A, chooses to fly around Object B, in order to avoid violating the SSDD-Law of Radiative Picky-ness.


SSDD's photons are sure smart aren't they.


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No wuwei...it makes the data useless....there is nothing special about energy moving from a warmer object to a cooler object...we see it in the case of radiation from the sun striking the surface every day...without the benefit of cooled instruments....now energy moving from a cool object to a warm object would be very special indeed....but we never measure that happening because it doesn't...thinking that you have measured it when in fact, all you have been doing is measuring energy moving from a warmer object to the cooler instrument is what is known as fooling yourself with instrumentation....
> ...



Is heat a form of energy in and of itself, or is heat merely the "signature" of some form of energy moving from one place to another?  And the fact remains that energy has never been observed moving from a cool object to a warmer object.....ever.


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Come on, radiation emerging from Object A, and having measured the temperature of Object A, then takes the temperature of its target (Object B), and upon comparison, realizes that Object B is hotter than Object A, chooses to fly around Object B, in order to avoid violating the SSDD-Law of Radiative Picky-ness.
> ...




How smart does one need to be to not go to where on already knows it can't be absorbed?  Certainly no smarter than the marble that knows that it can't roll up hill, or the outside air that knows that it can't go into the hole in the tire that is leaking air...or the rock that knows when it is dropped that it can't fall into the sky...

It never fails to entertain me when you people suppose that an object must be smart to do what the laws of the universe command that they do....you think an electron must be smart to know which direction to travel in a wire?  You must see magic in everything....is that an offshoot of gaia worship or just a peculiarity you picked up from rocks?


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2016)

SSDD said:


> And the fact remains that energy has never been observed moving from a cool object to a warmer object.....ever.


You keep saying the same thing and the answer is still the same.
If you mean net energy then yes, you are correct.

If you are talking about radiation energy. Then you are incorrect because radiation moves anywhere and can move between objects at any temperature.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 11, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And the fact remains that energy has never been observed moving from a cool object to a warmer object.....ever.
> ...



While this is the base emission theroy it does not prove that "Back Radiation" more commonly known as black body radiative property has much of an effect, being cooler than the surface below it. 

A cooled detector can not differentiate the wave lengths of water, CO2, N2 and many other gases from one another.


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2016)

SSDD said:


> How smart does one need to be to not go to where on already knows it can't be absorbed


How does a photon "know" it can't be absorbed in a certain direction? That sounds like smarts to me.


SSDD said:


> Certainly no smarter than the marble that knows that it can't roll up hill, or the outside air that knows that it can't go into the hole in the tire that is leaking air...or the rock that knows when it is dropped that it can't fall into the sky...


You are talking about classical forces: gravity with a marble, pressure with a tire, gravity with a rock, and electric potential with an electron. Analogies don't always work in science. There is no  measurable force that can affect the direction of a photon.


SSDD said:


> It never fails to entertain me when you people suppose that an object must be smart to do what the laws of the universe command that they do....you think an electron must be smart to know which direction to travel in a wire? You must see magic in everything....is that an offshoot of gaia worship or just a peculiarity you picked up from rocks?


You are the one who thinks photons are smart. When you speak of "you people" you are not just referring to the more scientifically astute people on this board; you are referring to millions of scientists throughout the world. You are in a dark cave all by yourself.


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> A cooled detector can not differentiate the wave lengths of water, CO2, N2 and many other gases from one another.


A spectroscope can. That was used in the experiment being referred to .


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 11, 2016)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...



I believe a Qwark is refracted light (Photon).  When I measure optical power of a laser, the power is significantly greater at a 90 deg Angle than it is at a refracted 60 deg angle.  Using this basic physical observation much can be learned about how light (photons) responds in our atmosphere.

Photons which strike objects (other molecules) at greater than right angles loose massive amounts of power, over 60% of their power.  While molecules are emitting photons in all directions their effect is over rated by greater than 60% due to the diffuse patterns and angels. Then when we determine what is actually returning to earth  and not back to the atmosphere we decrease the amount of power again by 80% of the 60% leaving virtually no net power gain .  (3-7% of what is radiating out ward is re-emitted earth ward)  Water refraction and dust pretty much make this number zero.

This is a very simplified flow but you should be able to get the drift.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 11, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > A cooled detector can not differentiate the wave lengths of water, CO2, N2 and many other gases from one another.
> ...


NO!

Most of these gases overlap in spectral emittence, so how are you making this assumption?


----------



## mamooth (May 11, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Photons which strike objects (other molecules) at greater than right angles loose massive amounts of power, over 60% of their power.



And so Billy is now rejecting the Law of Conservation of Energy.

How ... insane.


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


 The spectra of each gas is well known. Through multivariate analysis you can separate each gasses spectral contribution.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 11, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Photons which strike objects (other molecules) at greater than right angles loose massive amounts of power, over 60% of their power.
> ...


Far from it snageltooth..

There is alwasy power loss. Thinking there is not, is how you all get 14,000 calories and no explanation of where it came from. When there is no physical observable evidence to prove your hypothesis.


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2016)

mamooth said:


> And so Billy is now rejecting the Law of Conservation of Energy.
> 
> How ... insane


I thought is statement, "_I believe a Qwark is refracted light (Photon)._" was even more insane.  Does he mean Quark?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 11, 2016)

SUB-atomic particles are whatever the hell you want to call them. I see being the grammar police is all you have..


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> SUB-atomic particles are whatever the hell you want to call them. I see being the grammar police is all you have..


Your misspelling wasn't insane. I don't zing people for that. What is insane is that Quarks are the internal structure of a proton and other heavy particles, and have absolutely nothing to do with refraction of light. Photons have no mass. How you got those two totally different concepts intermixed is absolutely amazing.

I'm beginning to think you and some others are trolls saying insane things just to get jollies from replies.


----------



## IanC (May 12, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have a Cliff Clavin app on your phone, or do you think up that nonsensical bafflegab by yourself?
> ...




there you go again! hahahahahahahahahaha

quarks are the building blocks of matter. photons are not matter, and have different properties than matter.

lasers are made up of highly organized photons that are capable of doing work, atmospheric radiation is diffuse and (almost) incapable of doing work. why are you comparing them?

why do you continue to string together pseudoscientific terms in a fashion that makes absolutely no sense?


----------



## Olde Europe (May 12, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Photons which strike objects (other molecules) at greater than right angles loose massive amounts of power, over 60% of their power.
> ...



I guess that Billy stumbled over a text discussing the Compton effect, that is, a photon hitting an electron or proton, and transferring parts of its energy to the hit object, and changing towards a longer wavelength.

*Compton scattering*, discovered by Arthur Holly Compton, is the inelastic scattering of a photon by a charged particle, usually an electron. It results in a decrease in energy (increase in wavelength) of the photon​
Or maybe it's Raman scattering?

*Raman scattering* or the *Raman effect* /ˈrɑːmən/ is the inelastic scattering of a photon upon interaction with matter. It was discovered by C. V. Raman and K. S. Krishnan (who was a student of C.V. Raman) in liquids,[1] and independently by Grigory Landsberg and Leonid Mandelstam in crystals.[2] The effect had been predicted theoretically by Adolf Smekal in 1923.​
I am almost certain that this is a mere distraction of very little explanatory value concerning AGW.


----------



## IanC (May 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> How smart does one need to be to not go to where on already knows it can't be absorbed?  Certainly no smarter than the marble that knows that it can't roll up hill, or the outside air that knows that it can't go into the hole in the tire that is leaking air...or the rock that knows when it is dropped that it can't fall into the sky...
> 
> It never fails to entertain me when you people suppose that an object must be smart to do what the laws of the universe command that they do....you think an electron must be smart to know which direction to travel in a wire?  You must see magic in everything....is that an offshoot of gaia worship or just a peculiarity you picked up from rocks?




here is an example of SSDD's faulty understanding. he conflates the properties of light and matter. air comes out of a tire in the direction of the pressure and because it is matter. no two (10, 1000, 1000000) molecules can occupy the same space. with light there is no bottleneck. there are no restrictions as to how many photons can exist in one spot, or the direction that they are travelling in.

gravity primarily affects matter (mass), always in an attractive direction. because light has a tiny component of momentum, which is related to mass, it too is slightly affected by gravity but not measurably with earth like conditions.

previously mentioned, but not in this post, SSDD also confuses the characteristics of virtual photons which carry force in electro/magnetic fields with common radiative photons which only serve to remove energy. virtual photons exist for a very short time and only become real if they find a partner to transfer force to, otherwise they just cease to exist. because time doesnt exist in the reference frame of a photon it exists every place on its trajectory and therefore its range is infinite no matter how long it exists. 

while it may very well be true that photons 'know' were they are going before they get there, radiative photons need no special characteristics to exist whereas virtual photons carrying force do. temperature in no way adds a 'tag' to a molecule, it is a property of the larger cohort of associated molecules. a single molecule has no temperature.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2016)

IanC said:


> here is an example of SSDD's faulty understanding. he conflates the properties of light and matter. air comes out of a tire in the direction of the pressure and because it is matter. no two (10, 1000, 1000000) molecules can occupy the same space. with light there is no bottleneck. there are no restrictions as to how many photons can exist in one spot, or the direction that they are travelling in.



So you can state with absolute surety that you fully understand the laws of nature to the point that you fully understand the forces that drive everything?  You are sure that there are no restrictions regarding photons?  For that matter, you are absolutely sure, and can prove that photons even exist?  Tell me ian, how far does your delusion of knowledge extend?  You say things like that as if there were some actual proof...



IanC said:


> previously mentioned, but not in this post, SSDD also confuses the characteristics of virtual photons which carry force in electro/magnetic fields with common radiative photons which only serve to remove energy. virtual photons exist for a very short time and only become real if they find a partner to transfer force to, otherwise they just cease to exist. because time doesnt exist in the reference frame of a photon it exists every place on its trajectory and therefore its range is infinite no matter how long it exists.



Interesting ian...you can't prove the existence of photons...nor can anyone else for that matter, but you seem to be old pals with virtual photons....it is little wonder that you have fallen for the AGW scam....you believe...really believe that you know all sorts of unknowable (at this point in time) things about the universe....



IanC said:


> while it may very well be true that photons 'know' were they are going before they get there, radiative photons need no special characteristics to exist whereas virtual photons carrying force do. temperature in no way adds a 'tag' to a molecule, it is a property of the larger cohort of associated molecules. a single molecule has no temperature.



While it may very well be that photons don't exist at all....then where does that leave you ian?


----------



## IanC (May 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > here is an example of SSDD's faulty understanding. he conflates the properties of light and matter. air comes out of a tire in the direction of the pressure and because it is matter. no two (10, 1000, 1000000) molecules can occupy the same space. with light there is no bottleneck. there are no restrictions as to how many photons can exist in one spot, or the direction that they are travelling in.
> ...




so, youre back to the same old rant eh? photons dont exist and quantum mechanics is a pipe dream? hahahaha, yet if you tweek your knee you run off to get an MRI. 

no area has been studied more than light and its properties. will QM be supplanted with a more sophisticated theory? probably, but the new theory will give answers very similar to QM except on the very edges, just like QM gives very similar answers to the Newtonian system that it replaced except for relativistic conditions.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2016)

IanC said:


> so, youre back to the same old rant eh? photons dont exist and quantum mechanics is a pipe dream? hahahaha, yet if you tweek your knee you run off to get an MRI.



And you are still in the same old deflection mode...unable to bring yourself to admit what you don't know...



IanC said:


> no area has been studied more than light and its properties. will QM be supplanted with a more sophisticated theory? probably, but the new theory will give answers very similar to QM except on the very edges, just like QM gives very similar answers to the Newtonian system that it replaced except for relativistic conditions.



And yet, actual science remains unsure as to it's actual nature...only idiots believe that they actually know that photons, and virtual photons exist and what their properties may be....it is as stupid as wuwei and the hairball pointing a cooled instrument at the sky and thinking they are measuring back radiation...


----------



## Olde Europe (May 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> For that matter, you are absolutely sure, and can prove that photons even exist? Tell me ian, how far does your delusion of knowledge extend?



A photon isn't a thing.  It's a concept with explanatory value for our observations.

For the sake of the argument, let's assume Ian cannot prove photons "exist".  As far as I have seen, he still doesn't assume his/her ignorance trumps the world's best physicists' knowledge.  Incidentally, that would mark a stark difference between Ian and SSDD.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > For that matter, you are absolutely sure, and can prove that photons even exist? Tell me ian, how far does your delusion of knowledge extend?
> ...



Exactly what I have been saying since I first spoke to Ian...it is a story...a place holder...a way to explain what we see even though we don't understand the underlying nature of what we are seeing...



IanC said:


> For the sake of the argument, let's assume Ian cannot prove photons "exist".  As far as I have seen, he still doesn't assume his/her ignorance trumps the world's best physicists' knowledge.  Incidentally, that would mark a stark difference between Ian and SSDD.



Knowing one is ignorant is the first step to actually learning something...Ian actually believes that he knows that photons exist..he believes that back radiation exists even though it has never been observed or measured...he believes that virtual photons exist and that he knows what they are about during the time of their existence....he believes that he actually knows these things and is locked in his belief...

And modern physics, by the way is in crisis mode...they have abandoned actual observation in lieu of models....


----------



## Olde Europe (May 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Knowing one is ignorant is the first step to actually learning something...Ian actually believes that he knows that photons exist..he believes that back radiation exists even though it has never been observed or measured.



The first phrase would be the most valuable advice you could start to absorb.

Of course, back radiation has been measured; your ignorance about it is no proof to the contrary, and neither is your failure to understand it.  Also, the (decline of the) earth's radiation into space has been measured, and found changes over certain wavelengths characteristically associated with greenhouse gases, altering the earth's energy budget.

But hey, given your track record, you'll remain comfortable waving your ignorance like a placard, confident your demonstration is proof of... something.


----------



## Wuwei (May 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> So you can state with absolute surety that you fully understand the laws of nature to the point that you fully understand the forces that drive everything? You are sure that there are no restrictions regarding photons? For that matter, you are absolutely sure, and can prove that photons even exist? Tell me ian, how far does your delusion of knowledge extend? You say things like that as if there were some actual proof...





SSDD said:


> Interesting ian...you can't prove the existence of photons...nor can anyone else for that matter, but you seem to be old pals with virtual photons....it is little wonder that you have fallen for the AGW scam....you believe...really believe that you know all sorts of unknowable (at this point in time) things about the universe....





SSDD said:


> While it may very well be that photons don't exist at all....then where does that leave you ian?


Here is something you don't understand about modern physics. All understanding of physics today is embedded in the mathematics. Words like "photons", "weak force", "quarks" are names given to various mathematical constructs that predict what happens in reality.

The mathematics of quantum electrodynamics (QED) explains *everything *about photons better than any thought process you will ever have. It explains all electromagnetic events to one part per billion, and in one experiment, one part per trillion in accuracy. 

Mathematics *is* the understanding of modern physics. If anyone says photons do not exist they are up against the incredible accuracy of mathematics.


----------



## Wuwei (May 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> And modern physics, by the way is in crisis mode...they have abandoned actual observation in lieu of models....


Absolutely wrong. The only thing in crisis mode is you. You who are denying the knowledge of man.

It is the mathematical models that codifies the knowledge of man.


.


----------



## IanC (May 12, 2016)

hahahahaha! how do you deal with someone like SSDD? he says 'maybe photons dont exist'. what does he mean by that? surely he acknowledges that light exists? is he complaining along the lines of "a diagram of a tree is not a real tree."?

we can, and have, measured the emissivity of soil, plants, fresh water, sea water, rocks, ice, snow, etc. so we know to a pretty good degree what the surface sends up in the way of radiation. we have satellites that measure the radiation coming through the atmosphere and escaping to space. the two are not remotely the same in quantity or quality. what happened to the energy that disappeared along the way? and how can the surface be radiating 400w/ m2 when it is only receiving 165w/m2 of sunlight?

hahahaha. SSDD and his sycophants refuse to address any of these issues. they claim that the laws of thermodynamics prove them right but they refuse to defend their use of the wrong laws for the conditions.

it's a waste of time, and it always has been.


----------



## Wuwei (May 12, 2016)

IanC said:


> hahahahaha! how do you deal with someone like SSDD? he says 'maybe photons dont exist'. what does he mean by that? surely he acknowledges that light exists? is he complaining along the lines of "a diagram of a tree is not a real tree."?
> 
> hahahaha. SSDD and his sycophants refuse to address any of these issues. they claim that the laws of thermodynamics prove them right but they refuse to defend their use of the wrong laws for the conditions.


The syncophants (they know who they are) have no understanding of science and come out with the wackiest misunderstandings. They are continually shot down but don't have the understanding of why they were shot down or the fact that they were indeed shot down.

SSDD is different. He has looked into the surface nature of the 2nd law, the Stefan-Boltzman equation, and black body radiation, etc. He can fiddle around with the equations (erroneously) and when he is shot down, I think he realizes why, but further entrenches himself in his ill-constructed brand of science. If his detractors stand by their arguments and he is seriously boxed into a contradiction or hypocrisy, he will in the case of this thread, continually repeat his anti-science mantras, or he will simply leave for a while.

He will come back in a few weeks as if the previous arguments never happened and start over again and the whole thing repeats. I have been wondering if he is a troll or his brain is seriously into science denial. I think it's a bit of both, but the troll aspect is a bit stronger.

A recurring mantra is to add "observed, measured, quantified" to every other sentence. He derides mathematical models of any sort, not realizing that the models ultimate source was a mathematical codification of "observed, measured, quantified" phenomena.

As I said before it is hard to argue science with someone who doesn't believe in it, or pretends not to.


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> Of course, back radiation has been measured; your ignorance about it is no proof to the contrary, and neither is your failure to understand it.  Also, the (decline of the) earth's radiation into space has been measured, and found changes over certain wavelengths characteristically associated with greenhouse gases, altering the earth's energy budget.



Sorry guy, but back radiation has not been either observed, or measured....do you believe measuring radiation with an instrument that is cooler than the emitter is measuring back anything?  That is just measuring energy moving from a warm radiator to a cooler instrument....nothing special there.


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Here is something you don't understand about modern physics. All understanding of physics today is embedded in the mathematics. Words like "photons", "weak force", "quarks" are names given to various mathematical constructs that predict what happens in reality.



And you believe that because you hit on a method to predict what happens in reality you understand the forces driving what happens in reality?  Back radiation has never been observed...ever...regardless of what the mathematical models say.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> That is just measuring energy moving from a warm radiator to a cooler instrument....nothing special there.



Exactly, there really is nothing special there. A warm radiator emits energy (radiation) into every direction, completely unaware of, and unaffected by, the temperature of the instrument measuring this radiation.  It has been done and is being done.  In the earlier days of LWIR measurement, those instruments had to be cooled to eliminate errors of measurement caused by the instrument's own radiation (which no longer is the case).

This has been explained to you so often on this thread alone, I lost count.  You really are embarrassing yourself with your constant repetition of the same tripe.


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > That is just measuring energy moving from a warm radiator to a cooler instrument....nothing special there.
> ...




Measuring energy moving from a warm radiator to a cool instrument is indeed nothing special...measuring energy moving from a cool radiator to a warmer instrument would be and never has been...energy doesn't move from cool to warm...an explanation is only valid if it is true...there has never been an observation of energy moving from cool to warm...saying that there has doesn't change the fact......the fact is that the cooling systems have only become more advanced so that the instruments can be cooled to lower temperatures....that's because the only way to measure energy moving from the atmosphere to the ground is to cool the instrument to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....unless a rare temperature inversion is present.


----------



## mamooth (May 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> ......the fact is that the cooling systems have only become more advanced so that the instruments can be cooled to lower temperatures....



No, the fact is that the detectors now don't need to be cooled at all.

Mass-market consumer electronic devices now conclusively destroy your kook theory.

It must really suck to fail so hard in front of everyone. However, you need to understand that you only make it worse by lying instead of admitting your failure.


----------



## Wuwei (May 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Here is something you don't understand about modern physics. All understanding of physics today is embedded in the mathematics. Words like "photons", "weak force", "quarks" are names given to various mathematical constructs that predict what happens in reality.
> ...


An experiment was done with a detector facing upward to measure the spectrum of downward radiation. That makes it observed, measured, quantified spectroscopic data of downward radiation, commonly called back radiation. The instrument was specifically measuring radiation, not just any type of downward energy. As you know radiation can move from objects at any temperature to other objects at any temperature. The experiment shows the radiation expected from the known GHG's.


----------



## IanC (May 16, 2016)

Figure 2. Photographs showing the BSRN station and the 200 m tower in Cabauw. The basic radiation measurements consist of global, direct, diffuse and downward longwave radiation. In addition, various spectral solar radiation measurements are made.

KNMI (also a repository of climate data archives) is an active member of a group that studies radiation around the world. To say that there is no measured data is absurd in the extreme.


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ......the fact is that the cooling systems have only become more advanced so that the instruments can be cooled to lower temperatures....
> ...



Mass markets consumer electronics only measure the amount of, and rate of temperature change in an internal thermopile...


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



So you do believe downward radiation is back radiation...downward radiation is just downward radiation...back radiation is radiation absorbed by an object and then emitted back to the object from which it was emitted....and the downward radiation was only measured because it was being received by an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere...radiation doesn't care about direction..only that it it is moving always from warm to cool...from less entropy to more entropy...


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2016)

IanC said:


> Figure 2. Photographs showing the BSRN station and the 200 m tower in Cabauw. The basic radiation measurements consist of global, direct, diffuse and downward longwave radiation. In addition, various spectral solar radiation measurements are made.
> 
> KNMI (also a repository of climate data archives) is an active member of a group that studies radiation around the world. To say that there is no measured data is absurd in the extreme.



Measurements of downward radiation with pyrogeometers? ...once again...climate pseudoscience fooling itself with instrumentation...pyrogeometers have internal thermopiles and operate on the instruction  DLR = V/K + sigma T_s^4  where V is measured voltage by the thermopile, K is a sensitivity coefficient to be determined by calibration to a reference, T_s is the measured temperature of the pyrgeometer and sigma is Stefan-Boltzmann's constant.   A pyrgeometer measures a gross transfer and then invents DLR by adding that to outgoing radiation according to Stefan-Boltzmann for a blackbody emitting into a void at 0 K.

But hey...you are a believer so believe on Garth.


----------



## Wuwei (May 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> So you do believe downward radiation is back radiation...downward radiation is just downward radiation...back radiation is radiation absorbed by an object and then emitted back to the object from which it was emitted....


That is not a belief. That is the definition of back radiation when it is applied to the the GHGs of the atmosphere. Your last sentence is a bit awkward. The earth radiates the full black body spectrum. The GHGs radiate some back to the earth only at their resonance spectra.


SSDD said:


> and the downward radiation was only measured because it was being received by an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere.


The downward radiation would go down whether there is a detector or not.


SSDD said:


> .radiation doesn't care about direction..only that it it is moving always from warm to cool


Yes radiation doesn't care about direction. So what principle stops back radiation from going to a cooler object if it doesn't care about direction.


SSDD said:


> ...from less entropy to more entropy...


The entropy of the system of all objects will increase as it should by the second law since during radiation exchange more radiation goes from the hotter objects to the cooler objects. The net radiation imbalance insures the second law is preserved.


----------



## Wuwei (May 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> And you believe that because you hit on a method to predict what happens in reality you understand the forces driving what happens in reality? Back radiation has never been observed...ever...regardless of what the mathematical models say.


I didn't hit on any method. Many other physicists did. The understanding is in the equations of Quantum Mechanics which was derived from countless observed, measured, quantified experiments. Back radiation has been observed. See IanC's response.


----------



## IanC (May 16, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you do believe downward radiation is back radiation...downward radiation is just downward radiation...back radiation is radiation absorbed by an object and then emitted back to the object from which it was emitted....
> ...




The atmosphere produces (imperfect) blackbody radiation. It has some elevated GHG spikes but it still resembles the Planck curve. It would still return energy even if it contained no GHGs.


----------



## Wuwei (May 16, 2016)

IanC said:


> The atmosphere produces (imperfect) blackbody radiation. It has some elevated GHG spikes but it still resembles the Planck curve. It would still return energy even if it contained no GHGs.


I agree. But I was focusing only on the GHGs since they are what keeps the earth blanketed.


----------



## IanC (May 16, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The atmosphere produces (imperfect) blackbody radiation. It has some elevated GHG spikes but it still resembles the Planck curve. It would still return energy even if it contained no GHGs.
> ...




That only perpetuates the myth that CO2 molecules act like a half silvered mirror. GHGs directly warm the atmosphere by intercepting surface IR, which then returns blackbody radiation to the surface. 

There are very few interactions where a photon leaves the surface, gets absorbed, and is then re-emited back to the surface. It comes back as blackbody radiation and dipole excitation emission, both caused by molecular collisions, which are a byproduct of temperature (kinetic energy).


----------



## IanC (May 16, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you do believe downward radiation is back radiation...downward radiation is just downward radiation...back radiation is radiation absorbed by an object and then emitted back to the object from which it was emitted....
> ...




SSDD doesn't do entropy or conservative of momentum. If he did then he would realize his smart photons cannot be obeying the basic laws of physics.


----------



## Wuwei (May 16, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD doesn't do entropy or conservative of momentum. If he did then he would realize his smart photons cannot be obeying the basic laws of physics.


If he doesn't do entropy he shouldn't have brought it up. He ain't thinkin real good.


----------



## Wuwei (May 17, 2016)

IanC said:


> The atmosphere produces (imperfect) blackbody radiation. It has some elevated GHG spikes but it still resembles the Planck curve. It would still return energy even if it contained no GHGs.


Without GHGs the atmosphere of O2 and N2 would have an emissivity way outside the range of the earths IR emission. That means it would be largely transparent to the earth's IR outgoing. How could it still return energy?


IanC said:


> That only perpetuates the myth that CO2 molecules act like a half silvered mirror. GHGs directly warm the atmosphere by intercepting surface IR, which then returns blackbody radiation to the surface.


I think of CO2 emission as scattering, although an excited vibrational state can be quenched in collisions and transformed to kinetic energy. There is always a population of excited CO2 maintained that can re-emit IR from the vibration states.


IanC said:


> There are very few interactions where a photon leaves the surface, gets absorbed, and is then re-emited back to the surface. It comes back as blackbody radiation and dipole excitation emission, both caused by molecular collisions, which are a byproduct of temperature (kinetic energy).


I'm not sure what you mean by "very few interactions". The earth radiates in the far IR. N2 and O2 are transparent to that IR. It seems that if it were black body radiation in the IR it could only be through the GHGs. Another way of looking at it is that the emissivity of N2 and O2 is near zero in the IR, whereas the emissivity of the GHGs are high in parts of that region. That's what makes them GHGs. Also I don't think that black body radiation is a term that can be used casually in simple gasses. There are very few vibrational states. There are almost a continuum of vibrational states in a solid because the neighboring atoms are intimately coupled. That coupling promotes a flatter emisivity curve as a function of wavelength which in turn promotes truer BB radiation only for solids or liquids.


----------



## mamooth (May 17, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Mass markets consumer electronics only measure the amount of, and rate of temperature change in an internal thermopile...



And since the temperature changes only because radiation from a colder object is hitting it, your attempted evasion there makes no sense, and you're still left with your crap theory getting debunked.


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2016)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


and yet you can't prove that can you? I've asked and still you can't explain why that doesn't happen above a desert at night. The hottest places during sunlight and extremely cold when the sunlight is gone.  hmmmmmmmm.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> I've asked and still you can't explain why that doesn't happen above a desert at night. The hottest places during sunlight and extremely cold when the sunlight is gone. hmmmmmmmm.



That's easy enough to explain.  One of the most potent GHGs is water vapor.  That, however, is scarce in desert climates, which is why IR radiation from the desert surface escapes without notably warming up the troposphere, resulting in very low back radiation, which means deserts cool down quickly at night.


----------



## SSDD (May 17, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I've asked and still you can't explain why that doesn't happen above a desert at night. The hottest places during sunlight and extremely cold when the sunlight is gone. hmmmmmmmm.
> ...




It isn't back radiation...it is the humidity itself heating up as a result of absorbing IR leaving the surface...


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I've asked and still you can't explain why that doesn't happen above a desert at night. The hottest places during sunlight and extremely cold when the sunlight is gone. hmmmmmmmm.
> ...


dude, I know about water vapor if you've read other threads.  But it still doesn't explain the CO2 molecule not working.

Humidity can be measured, and yet you don't see a CO2 temperature measurement.  hmmmmmmmm I'm still waiting.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 17, 2016)

SSDD said:


> It isn't back radiation...it is the humidity itself heating up as a result of absorbing IR leaving the surface...



And the energy from a warmed up "humidity" at, say, 100 to 500 meters above ground reaches the surface how?



jc456 said:


> dude, I know about water vapor if you've read other threads. But it still doesn't explain the CO2 molecule not working.



The CO2 molecule is "working", which is why the desert doesn't go into deep freeze upon sunset.

Look, back radiation is combined radiation coming back from all warmed-up GHGs throughout the troposphere.  Take one important GHG (water vapor) out, and you get less back radiation, and thus a cooler surface at night.


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't back radiation...it is the humidity itself heating up as a result of absorbing IR leaving the surface...
> ...


I guess my term for warm and yours are two different things.  There will still be LWIR leaving the surface, it is much less without the humidity in the air.  The sand would freeze if there wasn't some LWIR coming from it.


----------



## SSDD (May 17, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't back radiation...it is the humidity itself heating up as a result of absorbing IR leaving the surface...
> ...



It doesn't...energy doesn't move from cool to warm.



Olde Europe said:


> The CO2 molecule is "working", which is why the desert doesn't go into deep freeze upon sunset.



No...the atmospheric thermal effect is working...climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less.



Olde Europe said:


> Look, back radiation is combined radiation coming back from all warmed-up GHGs throughout the troposphere.  Take one important GHG (water vapor) out, and you get less back radiation, and thus a cooler surface at night.



There is no back radiation.....energy detected coming from the atmosphere to a cooled instrument isn't back anything...it is energy moving from warm to cool.


----------



## SSDD (May 17, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Mass markets consumer electronics only measure the amount of, and rate of temperature change in an internal thermopile...
> ...



Idiot....the temperature change resulting from measuring a cooler object is due to the thermopile cooling off at a faster rate...not because energy from the cool object is radiating to the thermopile...


----------



## SSDD (May 17, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "very few interactions". The earth radiates in the far IR. N2 and O2 are transparent to that IR. It seems that if it were black body radiation in the IR it could only be through the GHGs. Another way of looking at it is that the emissivity of N2 and O2 is near zero in the IR, whereas the emissivity of the GHGs are high in parts of that region. That's what makes them GHGs. Also I don't think that black body radiation is a term that can be used casually in simple gasses. There are very few vibrational states. There are almost a continuum of vibrational states in a solid because the neighboring atoms are intimately coupled. That coupling promotes a flatter emisivity curve as a function of wavelength which in turn promotes truer BB radiation only for solids or liquids.



What he means is explained in this conversation between Dr Happer, a physicist who has specialised in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy. He is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University, and a long-term member of the JASON advisory group, where he pioneered the development of adaptive optics....  Dr Happer's responses are in ALLCAPS

*From:*David Burton
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:49 PM
*To:* William Happer
*Subject:* Another dumb question from Dave

Dear Prof. Happer,

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY.  I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]


You didn't mention it, but I assume H2O molecules have a similar decay time to emit an IR photon. Is that right, too? [YES.  I CAN'T IMMEDIATELY FIND A SIMILAR PAPER TO THE ONE I ATTACHED ABOUT CO2, BUT THESE TRANSITIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY STUDIED IN CONNECTION WITH INTERSTELLAR MASERS. I ATTACH SOME NICE VIEWGRAPHS THAT SUMMARIZE THE ISSUES, A FEW OF WHICH TOUCH ON H2O, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT INTERSTELLAR MOLECULES.  ALAS, THE SLIDES DO NOT INCLUDE A TABLE OF LIFETIMES. BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRACK THEM DOWN FROM REFERENCES ON THE VIEWGRAPHS IF YOU LIKE. ROUGHLY SPEAKING, THE RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENTS SCALE AS THE CUBE OF THE WAVELENTH AND INVERSELY AS THE SQUARE OF THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MATRIX ELEMENT (FROM BASIC QUANTUM MECHANICS) SO IF AN ATOM HAS A RADIATIVE LIFETIME OF 16 NSEC AT A WAVELENGTH OF 0.6 MIRONS (SODIUM), A CO2 BENDING MODE TRANSITION, WITH A WAVELENGTH OF 15 MICRONS AND ABOUT 1/30 THE MATRIX ELEMENT SHOULD HAVE A LIFETIME OF ORDER 16 (30)^2 (15/.6)^3 NS = 0.2 S.


So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, not by re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]


In other words, the very widely repeated description of GHG molecules absorbing infrared photons and then re-emitting them in random directions is only correct for about one absorbed photon in a billion. True? [YES, IT IS THIS EXTREME SLOWNESS OF RADIATIVE DECAY RATES THAT ALLOWS THE CO2 MOLECULES IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO HAVE VERY NEARLY THE SAME VIBRATION-ROTATION TEMPERATURE OF THE LOCAL AIR MOLECULES.]


Here's an example from the NSF, with a lovely animated picture, which even illustrates the correct vibrational mode:

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education






Am I correct in thinking that illustration is wrong for about 99.9999999% of the photons which CO2 absorbs in the lower troposphere? [YES, THE PICTURE IS A BIT MISLEADING. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY.  IF THE CO2 MOLECULE COULD RADIATE COMPLETELY WITH NO COLLISIONAL INTERRUPTIONS, THE LENGTH OF THE RADIATIVE PULSE WOULD BE THE DISTANCE LIGHT CAN TRAVEL IN THE RADIATIVE LIFETIME. SO THE PULSE IN THE NSF FIGURE SHOULD BE 300,000 KM LONG, FROM THE EARTH'S SURFACE TO WELL BEYOND A SATELLITE IN GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT. THE RADIATED PULSE SHOULD CONTAIN 667 CM^{-1} *3 X 10^{10} CM S^{-1}*1 S  WAVES OR ABOUT 2 TRILLION WAVES, NOT JUST A FEW AS IN THE FIGURE.  A BIT OF POETIC LICENSE IS OK.  I CERTAINLY PLEAD GUILTY TO USING SOME ON MY VIEWGRAPHS. BUT WE SHOULD NOT MAKE TRILLION-DOLLAR ECONOMIC DECISIONS WITHOUT MORE QUANTITATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE PHYSICS.]


(Aside: it doesn't really shock me that the NSF is wrong -- I previously caught them contradicting Archimedes: before & after.)

If that NSF web page & illustration were right, then the amount of IR emitted by CO2 or H2O vapor in the atmosphere would depend heavily on how much IR it received and absorbed. If more IR was emitted from the ground, then more IR would be re-emitted by the CO2 and H2O molecules, back toward the ground. But I think that must be wrong.[YES, THE AMOUNT OF RADIATION EMITTED BY GREENHOUSE MOLECULES DEPENDS ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THEIR TEMPERATURE. THE PERTRUBATION BY RADIATION COMING FROM THE GROUND OR OUTER SPACE IS NEGLIGIBLE.  CO2 LASER BUILDERS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY WITH CUNNING DISCHARE PHYSICS TO GET THE CO2 MOLECULES OUT OF THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM SO THEY CAN AMPLIFY RADIATION.]


If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY.  WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT CHANDRASEKHAR CALLS AN “ABSORBING ATMOSPHERE” AS OPPOSED TO A “SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE.”  ASTROPHYSICISTS ARE OFTEN MORE INTERESTED IN SCATTERING ATMOSPHERES, LIKE THE INTERIOR OF THE SUN. THE BLUE SKY DURING A CLEAR DAY IS AN EXAMPLE OF SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE.  VERY LITTLE HEATING OR COOLING OF THE AIR OCCURS WITH THIS “RAYLEIGH SCATTERING.”]


Thank you for educating a dumb old computer scientist like me! [YOU ARE HARDLY DUMB.  YOU GET AN A+ FOR THIS RECITATION SESSION ON RADIATIVE TRANSFER. ]

What the professor is saying is that in other words; insofar as moving energy out of the atmosphere, convection rules....radiation is a bit player of such minute proportions that it hardly rates mention.


----------



## mamooth (May 17, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Idiot....the temperature change resulting from measuring a cooler object is due to the thermopile cooling off at a faster rate...not because energy from the cool object is radiating to the thermopile...



According to your stupid theory, everything colder than the detector should display the same "shade", since the thermopiles "reject" all radiation from any colder object. Whether it's a 1 degree or 100 degree difference, your theory doesn't differentiate. It's colder, so the photons don't get absorbed.

Yet that doesn't happen. We see different "shades" of cold on the output of the thermal scanner. The thermopiles are very clearly absorbing different amounts of energy from cold objects that are different temperatures.

Hence, your theory fails.

Oh, that wasn't a "conversation" with Dr. Happer. That was some loon writing a crazy letter. Conversations require that both people talk.

And if you want to know the flaw in your brilliant theory there  ... "vibrational modes". That's how GHG molecules can store energy. Collisions between molecules rarely result in molecule losing the energy of that vibration.


----------



## IanC (May 17, 2016)

What say you wuwei-? Although Happer's numbers are orders of magnitude different than what I have seen elsewhere, the basic principle agrees. Surface IR warms the atmosphere, the atmosphere sends some energy back by blackbody radiation (which was not discussed)


----------



## IanC (May 17, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Idiot....the temperature change resulting from measuring a cooler object is due to the thermopile cooling off at a faster rate...not because energy from the cool object is radiating to the thermopile...
> ...




So what's your answer to that SSDD? If you fall back to only the net energy gets transferred from the SB equation, then what happens to the momentum and entropy that doesn't get created by the gross radiation 'not counted'?


----------



## Wuwei (May 17, 2016)

SSDD said:


> What the professor is saying is that in other words; insofar as moving energy out of the atmosphere, convection rules....radiation is a bit player of such minute proportions that it hardly rates mention.



The professor is right for the one narrow aspect of it he covered. Yes, a CO2 molecule will probably loose its excited vibration state through a collision rather than an emission.

What the professor didn't cover is the equipartition theorem as it involves the energy states of CO2 and H2O and other GHGs. For a simple explanation see
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/eqpar.html

There will be equal amounts of energy divided among all the GHG vibration states, rotation states and kinetic energy. Most of the vibration states as shown in the animation will arise from the churning energy of the atmospheric molecules hitting the GHGs and not from the earth's upward LWIR. The upward IR will increase the population of the GHG vibration part of the total energy, and that energy will dissipate through collisions and some LWIR in arbitrary directions.

One way of looking at it is that CO2 can absorb IR, but CO2 excited by collisions will emit most of the IR.

In short, the animation shows a single CO2 molecule absorbing IR and emitting the same energy. In reality an large statistical ensemble CO2 molecules will absorb IR and the statistical ensemble will emit IR, although an individual molecule most likely won't do both in a small time window. Remember through the equipartition theorm there is a tremendous amount of energy in the vibrational states that scatter the LWIR.


----------



## Wuwei (May 17, 2016)

IanC said:


> What say you wuwei-? Although Happer's numbers are orders of magnitude different than what I have seen elsewhere, the basic principle agrees. Surface IR warms the atmosphere, the atmosphere sends some energy back by blackbody radiation (which was not discussed)


I thought I answered the black body aspect in post 379. Happer's comments were answered in the previous post to SSDD.


----------



## IanC (May 17, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What the professor is saying is that in other words; insofar as moving energy out of the atmosphere, convection rules....radiation is a bit player of such minute proportions that it hardly rates mention.
> ...




I don't have time to look at your link right now but the problem with the equipartition theory is that there is a temperature gradient to the atmosphere. The type and the quantities coming out of the top are different than what is going in at the surface.


----------



## IanC (May 17, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > What say you wuwei-? Although Happer's numbers are orders of magnitude different than what I have seen elsewhere, the basic principle agrees. Surface IR warms the atmosphere, the atmosphere sends some energy back by blackbody radiation (which was not discussed)
> ...




I re-read 379. I did not realize that you don't believe that objects made of gas, or objects made up of a single element or molecule were exempt from the law that every object emits radiation according to its temperature. Interesting.


----------



## Wuwei (May 17, 2016)

IanC said:


> I don't have time to look at your link right now but the problem with the equipartition theory is that there is a temperature gradient to the atmosphere. The type and the quantities coming out of the top are different than what is going in at the surface.


I don't see a problem. The energies of the various gases will still be partitioned equally. At lower temperatures there will still be equal amounts of energies in each degree of freedom, but of course the energies will be lower.


----------



## Wuwei (May 17, 2016)

IanC said:


> I re-read 379. I did not realize that you don't believe that objects made of gas, or objects made up of a single element or molecule were exempt from the law that every object emits radiation according to its temperature. Interesting.


I believe that a gas will radiate according to it's temperature. A higher rate of collisions will keep the vibration states more strongly populated. 

The temperature of a single element or molecule doesn't make sense. You can describe it to have kinetic energy and internal energies, but you need a bunch of them to define temperature. A gas at a particular temperature has a statistical distribution of velocities given by the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. You can't define a statistical distribution of one molecule.


----------



## SSDD (May 18, 2016)

IanC said:


> What say you wuwei-? Although Happer's numbers are orders of magnitude different than what I have seen elsewhere, the basic principle agrees. Surface IR warms the atmosphere, the atmosphere sends some energy back by blackbody radiation (which was not discussed)



Wasn't discussed because it doesn't happen....if it did it would certainly be a central issue...


----------



## SSDD (May 18, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> What the professor didn't cover is the equipartition theorem as it involves the energy states of CO2 and H2O and other GHGs. For a simple explanation see
> Equipartition of Energy



He clearly stated that while he could't lay his hands on H2O studies at that moment, he was quite certain that the numbers weren't that different for H20...and there is no reason to believe that the rate of decay for the other so called greenhouse gasses is significantly different.

Back radiation does not exist and even if it did, it would be so small as to be unmeasurable...


----------



## Wuwei (May 18, 2016)

SSDD said:


> He clearly stated that while he could't lay his hands on H2O studies at that moment, he was quite certain that the numbers weren't that different for H20...and there is no reason to believe that the rate of decay for the other so called greenhouse gasses is significantly different.


I never said water was different. I agree that H2O and all the GHGs exhibit similar behaviors in that the emission and absorption of LWIR is in the vibration states, and absorption and re-emission by the same molecule is very low probability.


SSDD said:


> Back radiation does not exist and even if it did, it would be so small as to be unmeasurable...


You didn't understand the equipartition theory! It shows why Happer misses out on the major absorption and emission mechanisms and only focuses on a mechanism with minimal effect. He then draws a faulty conclusion from that myopic "conversation". I would give his student an A+ for asking the right questions, but Hopper a C- for a very incomplete analysis.


----------



## IanC (May 18, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I re-read 379. I did not realize that you don't believe that objects made of gas, or objects made up of a single element or molecule were exempt from the law that every object emits radiation according to its temperature. Interesting.
> ...




Sorry if you were confused by my somewhat awkwardly phrased comment. 

Single 'type' of element or molecule. 

Obviously one single solitary molecule has no temperature. Temperature is a description of the average kinetic of a cohort of molecules. More importantly, there is no temperature 'tag' on molecules. No way for SSDD's smart photons to test their path.

In your post 379 you implied that only GHGs produce radiation in the atmosphere. That N2 and O2 were inert bystanders, and little blackbody radiation is produced by gases.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, back radiation has been measured; your ignorance about it is no proof to the contrary, and neither is your failure to understand it.  Also, the (decline of the) earth's radiation into space has been measured, and found changes over certain wavelengths characteristically associated with greenhouse gases, altering the earth's energy budget.
> ...



*That is just measuring energy moving from a warm radiator to a cooler instrument.
*
Yeah, radiation moving from the atmosphere BACK to the ground. Durr.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*...energy doesn't move from cool to warm...an explanation is only valid if it is true...there has never been an observation of energy moving from cool to warm...*

Derp.


----------



## SSDD (May 18, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> You didn't understand the equipartition theory! It shows why Happer misses out on the major absorption and emission mechanisms and only focuses on a mechanism with minimal effect. He then draws a faulty conclusion from that myopic "conversation". I would give his student an A+ for asking the right questions, but Hopper a C- for a very incomplete analysis.



I don't think Happer is missing anything....I think the more likely scenario is that you believe something is there which isn't, and the faulty conclusion is your own...and it is funny, you giving any sort of grade at all to a man of Dr. Happer's stature....the man is very well known for his writings and texts on topics ranging from mathematical physics to statistical mechanics and authored papers on various subjects including entries into the Encyclopedia of Applied Physics...there is little doubt that the man is brilliant and at the top of his field...and even less doubt that you aren't...

I belive in appealing to the equipartition theory, you are appealing to a theorem that says that all energy must be thermalized in an effort to prove that energy can not be thermalized...


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...


derp LOL


----------



## Wuwei (May 18, 2016)

IanC said:


> In your post 379 you implied that only GHGs produce radiation in the atmosphere. That N2 and O2 were inert bystanders, and little blackbody radiation is produced by gases.


A molecule can only emit photons by energy level transitions. What are they in a gas? N2 and O2 are diatomic molecules. They can't radiate by the "tuning fork" oscillations given in Hopper's picture.







N2 and O2 are like two bowling ball connected by a strong spring. That is a much stronger force than the wiggling of the three-element gasses. So N2 and O2 radiate at shorter wavelengths that are outside the thermal range. That is also why diatomic molecules are transparent to IR. CO2 also has "bowling ball" modes. In the above picture the O atoms will both bounce back and forth in opposite directions.

CH4 is a stronger GHG because it's four wings of Hydrogen have many more modes of vibration in the IR region than CO2, or H2O.

The second, and more familiar mode of energy level transitions are of course the orbital electrons. These energy levels transitions are well above the LWIR, and are often in the visible range.

As I said before, in a gas there are much fewer possibilities for energy level transitions than a solid which has "electric springs" throughout the solid lattice.If you want to think in terms of BB radiation you can, but a gas has a lot of areas of zero emissivity in the radiation spectra.

Even though some of the gases radiate outside the thermal range, of course they all contribute to radiation driving temperature flow.


----------



## Wuwei (May 18, 2016)

SSDD said:


> I don't think Happer is missing anything....I think the more likely scenario is that you believe something is there which isn't, and the faulty conclusion is your own...and it is funny, you giving any sort of grade at all to a man of Dr. Happer's stature....the man is very well known for his writings and texts on topics ranging from mathematical physics to statistical mechanics and authored papers on various subjects including entries into the Encyclopedia of Applied Physics...there is little doubt that the man is brilliant and at the top of his field...and even less doubt that you aren't...


Maybe Hopper has stature, but he if he is claiming back-radiation does not exist, he does not agree with the majority of other even more eminent scientists.


SSDD said:


> I belive in appealing to the equipartition theory, you are appealing to a theorem that says that all energy must be thermalized in an effort to prove that energy can not be thermalized...


That makes no sense. You will have to explain that further.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 19, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> I never said water was different. I agree that H2O and all the GHGs exhibit similar behaviors in that the emission and absorption of LWIR is in the vibration states, and absorption and re-emission by the same molecule is very low probability.



Yes, and the whole debate is an entirely pointless side-show.  What else was to be expected?  Even if we accept that the re-emission by the same GHG molecule is rare, the conclusion that back radiation is negligible is just nonsense.

Assuming that only one molecule in a billion re-emits that a photon, and the others transfer the energy, say, by collision, means (in other words, taken as a mass phenomenon) an atmosphere heating up. (Nearly) Without emitted photons this would result in an atmosphere continuously heating up (convection only transports energy within that same atmosphere), or, by now, after billions of years, in an atmosphere so hot nothing would live.  That's obviously nonsensical.  The solution is, of course, that the energy from surface-to-troposphere photons is being re-emitted by other molecules elevated to a higher energy level by way of collisions.  Hence the back radiation, even without photon emission by the molecule hit by a photon from the surface.

So, I'd say, what we've seen is just the SSDD.


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I never said water was different. I agree that H2O and all the GHGs exhibit similar behaviors in that the emission and absorption of LWIR is in the vibration states, and absorption and re-emission by the same molecule is very low probability.
> ...


and yet you can't prove back radiation exists.  you can't even offer up proof that a CO2 molecule emits.  Yeah you're the man, you got nothing.


----------



## Wuwei (May 19, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I never said water was different. I agree that H2O and all the GHGs exhibit similar behaviors in that the emission and absorption of LWIR is in the vibration states, and absorption and re-emission by the same molecule is very low probability.
> ...


SSDD and his minions have no understanding of the depth of radiation physics in gasses. They try to relate unrelated concepts without understanding either. Then they write derogatory posts. Ordinarily one would call this embarrassing, but they are too clueless to even see that. 

Your reference to "SSDD" didn't make any sense until I looked it up. It isn't in my working vocabulary, and for others who don't know what it means, it stands for Same Shit, Different Day. I can't think of a better moniker that he could have given himself.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 19, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> They try to relate unrelated concepts without understanding either. Then they write derogatory posts. Ordinarily one would call this embarrassing, but they are too clueless to even see that.



It so happens I think their insults are just the true measure of their intellectual helplessness.  Embarrassing it is, whether they actually see it or not.


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > They try to relate unrelated concepts without understanding either. Then they write derogatory posts. Ordinarily one would call this embarrassing, but they are too clueless to even see that.
> ...


excuse me, cough, who is insulting who?  Wow dude that's just amazing. give me one post number of one of us insulting. I supposed you just wash by rolling blunders posts eh?  LOL.


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I never said water was different. I agree that H2O and all the GHGs exhibit similar behaviors in that the emission and absorption of LWIR is in the vibration states, and absorption and re-emission by the same molecule is very low probability.
> ...



You don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that radiation is a bit player in the transfer of energy from the surface to space...it doesn't become important till energy reaches the top of the atmosphere...convection and conduction are the drivers down here where we live..


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD and his minions have no understanding of the depth of radiation physics in gasses. They try to relate unrelated concepts without understanding either. Then they write derogatory posts. Ordinarily one would call this embarrassing, but they are too clueless to even see that.



The problem is that you overestimate the importance of radiation...it is a bit player down here where we live...and CO2 is not even a walk on...


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> The problem is that you overestimate the importance of radiation...it is a bit player down here where we live...and CO2 is not even a walk on...


How can radiation be a bit player when the earth is radiating out 400 W/m2 on average, and the sun is only radiating in 160 W/m2. I wouldn't call that a bit player when it's out-radiating the sun.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 23, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I've asked and still you can't explain why that doesn't happen above a desert at night. The hottest places during sunlight and extremely cold when the sunlight is gone. hmmmmmmmm.
> ...



So can you show us a graph charting the measurements of water vapor over the same 150 year period your magical, glacier eating CO2 monster was changing the climate of planet Earth?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 23, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What the professor is saying is that in other words; insofar as moving energy out of the atmosphere, convection rules....radiation is a bit player of such minute proportions that it hardly rates mention.
> ...



That's fucking hilarious!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 23, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I never said water was different. I agree that H2O and all the GHGs exhibit similar behaviors in that the emission and absorption of LWIR is in the vibration states, and absorption and re-emission by the same molecule is very low probability.
> ...



Since when is our atmosphere a closed system? You must be thinking of a Dyson Sphere

And if your "theory" was even in the right universe there would be a troposphere hot spot. The other AGWCultists have told us: a) no hot spot is theorized, (after it wasn't found) or b) look, there's a hot spot! After the satellite data is adjusted


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 23, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > They try to relate unrelated concepts without understanding either. Then they write derogatory posts. Ordinarily one would call this embarrassing, but they are too clueless to even see that.
> ...



But it's your cult that calls skeptics "deniers" and keeps insisting that you get to sidestep the scientific method because you have "consensus "


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that you overestimate the importance of radiation...it is a bit player down here where we live...and CO2 is not even a walk on...
> ...



You seem to be unable to grasp the fact that the incoming is short wave...high energy radiation while the outgoing is long wave radiated after the high energy short wave has been absorbed.

Get a clue guy....really.


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2016)

There have been two interesting concepts brought up in the last couple of pages.

Equipartition theory is useful to highlight how molecular collisions drive the creation of radiation but it does not describe reality because there is a temperature gradient in the atmosphere.

The surface radiating more energy than the solar input it receives makes it obvious that there are more conditions that need to be examined than just solar input equals surface output. A very poor analogy is that GHGs are like a dam on a river that causes water to back up and pool. Yes there is more water (read energy) available but after the dam is filled the same amount of water spills over as before the dam.

Another related concept is that solar input is both high energy and highly ordered. It is capable of doing work. Surface IR is much less ordered and lower energy. Atmospheric IR is less energetic still, and almost completely unordered and diffuse. Entropy has increased as solar input has performed work on the Earth and waste heat has been discharged into space.

One of the main problems with the models is that they treat waste heat as the equivalent to solar input. It is not. The potential to create entropy has been used up. The work has already been done.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 23, 2016)

And why is Sun's corona 200 times hotter than the surface?

Why isn't the much hotter corona heating the Sun's surface?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> And why is Sun's corona 200 times hotter than the surface?
> 
> Why isn't the much hotter corona heating the Sun's surface?


*
Why isn't the much hotter corona heating the Sun's surface?
*
Any photons emitted by the corona and hitting the surface would heat the surface.


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > And why is Sun's corona 200 times hotter than the surface?
> ...


LOL, dude again, it would mean that the sun would blow up if that indeed was happening.  Holy crap the stuff you just can't make up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



The Sun would blow up if photons from the corona hit the surface of the Sun?

Wow, the things you learn on USMB.

Derp.


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well it seems you believe in perpetual motion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Photons hitting the Sun's surface is perpetual motion?

Did you make it through 8th grade science?
It's clear you retained nothing higher, if you even took it.


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


It would be a grade further than you


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> And why is Sun's corona 200 times hotter than the surface?
> 
> Why isn't the much hotter corona heating the Sun's surface?




I'm pretty sure if you did even the most cursory search you would find out that the corona is hot because of ions in a magnetic field rather than direct heating from the surface.


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> You seem to be unable to grasp the fact that the incoming is short wave...high energy radiation while the outgoing is long wave radiated after the high energy short wave has been absorbed.


Exactly right. The earth absorbs 160 W/m2 short wave radiation and emits 400 W/m2 long wave radiation. All climate scientist can explain that imbalance. Can you explain that energy imbalance too?


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2016)

IanC said:


> There have been two interesting concepts brought up in the last couple of pages.
> 
> Equipartition theory is useful to highlight how molecular collisions drive the creation of radiation but it does not describe reality because there is a temperature gradient in the atmosphere.


You will have to explain your thinking more. If there is a gradient, a small local volume of air at any height will be largely at the same temperature, and the equipartition of energy will hold for that volume. Equipartition was brought up only to show the mechanism of how an ensemble of atoms behaves, and that it is not a failure if a molecule absorbing IR is not the same to emit IR.


IanC said:


> Another related concept is that solar input is both high energy and highly ordered. It is capable of doing work. Surface IR is much less ordered and lower energy. Atmospheric IR is less energetic still, and almost completely unordered and diffuse. Entropy has increased as solar input has performed work on the Earth and waste heat has been discharged into space.
> 
> One of the main problems with the models is that they treat waste heat as the equivalent to solar input. It is not. The potential to create entropy has been used up. The work has already been done.


In thermodynamics, work means mechanical energy, like the movement of a piston. I don't see that sun energy directly causes work.

The sun's energy is not highly ordered since it is BB radiation. It is ordered only in the sense that the rays are almost parallel, but I don't see how that would affect things. 

Yes the surface and atmosphere are less energetic insofar as individual photon energy. The important issue is the total energy of the sun directly warming earth, and the larger total energy leaving the surface as BB radiation.

In thermodynamics waste heat only has meaning when there is a transfer of heat to mechanical energy, such as the wasted thermal energy out of your exhaust in a car. Mechanical energy does not have a major involvement in climate physics, except maybe for hail stones, heavy rain, or wind moving something.


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > There have been two interesting concepts brought up in the last couple of pages.
> ...




How is that different than what I said? It is useful in a general way, but not for any reasonable sized slabs of the atmosphere. What goes into the atmosphere at the surface and what comes out at the top are not similar in quantity or quality.

Yes solar is BBR but we are not talking about near Sol interactions. We are talking about collimated energy from a hot source in comparison to Earth temperatures. Can Earth's BBR be useful to do work in space? Yes, but it is highly inefficient on Earth.


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2016)

IanC said:


> How is that different than what I said? It is useful in a general way, but not for any reasonable sized slabs of the atmosphere. What goes into the atmosphere at the surface and what comes out at the top are not similar in quantity or quality.


I agree. The physics principles at the top and bottom of the atmosphere involve an equal partition of energies although the energies involved are different. 


IanC said:


> Yes solar is BBR but we are not talking about near Sol interactions. We are talking about collimated energy from a hot source in comparison to Earth temperatures. Can Earth's BBR be useful to do work in space? Yes, but it is highly inefficient on Earth.


As I said before, (mechanical) work plays a very small part (if at all) in the solar incoming radiation. The solar radiation heats the earth. How do you define work?

I don't agree with you that the earth's BBR does any work in space efficient or not. How do you define work in the earth's output BBR?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 24, 2016)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > And why is Sun's corona 200 times hotter than the surface?
> ...



Every source that comes up on googling "why is the suns Corona hotter than its surface" talks about its still a mystery and maybe there's a theory


----------



## jc456 (May 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


hey Frank, now that's a hot spot, eh?


----------



## SSDD (May 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



These guys stand in awe of science...they believe science knows everything right now and can't conceive of the idea that at this point science remains unsure as to even what it doesn't know that it doesn't know....I guess they fail to notice the abject failure of science in every discipline all around them every day....retractions of papers....finding out that what science has thought it knew for decades is actually wrong...seeing science bought by money and power...and now, science by consensus...they are worse than religious zealots...worse than the most ignorant deep south bible thumping preacher with big hair and a bad polyester suit.


----------



## IanC (May 24, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




Hahahaha perhaps I should have done a cursory search.

You are absolutely right and I was wrong. Please accept my apology


----------



## IanC (May 24, 2016)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Have you accepted my apology? I was wrong to condescendingly tell you to Google corona when in fact the mechanism is not actually fully understood. My bad. I have a lot more to say on the subject but I don't want to seem insincere in my apology.


----------



## SSDD (May 24, 2016)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



So long as you are going to actually do some cursory research...perhaps you could take a minute to confirm the fact that there isn't a single shred of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW....then ask yourself why the models fail so miserably if they are, in fact, based on sound physics....


----------



## IanC (May 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




I know you live to chant your mantra of 'not a single shred of measured ...' but it is not true. 

Has the CO2 content of the atmosphere been measured? 

Does the increase in CO2 correspond to the amount of fossil fuels we have burnt?

That is the first leg of AGW. If you agree, we can go on, if you disagree then state where and why.


----------



## IanC (May 24, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > How is that different than what I said? It is useful in a general way, but not for any reasonable sized slabs of the atmosphere. What goes into the atmosphere at the surface and what comes out at the top are not similar in quantity or quality.
> ...




I'm not a physics teacher, so I won't try to give a lecture on work and entropy. There is a massive amount of work being done on the Earth by solar input. Ocean and atmospheric currents for example.

It is differences between heat or energy levels that allow work to be done, at the expense of more entropy. Solar radiation has little effect near the Sun but a tremendous effect on the much cooler earth. Likewise earthshine has little effect near the earth but could be harnessed to do work in very cold outer space.


----------



## Wuwei (May 24, 2016)

IanC said:


> I'm not a physics teacher, so I won't try to give a lecture on work and entropy. There is a massive amount of work being done on the Earth by solar input. Ocean and atmospheric currents for example.
> 
> It is differences between heat or energy levels that allow work to be done, at the expense of more entropy. Solar radiation has little effect near the Sun but a tremendous effect on the much cooler earth. Likewise earthshine has little effect near the earth but could be harnessed to do work in very cold outer space.


OK that answers my question on what you mean - mechanical work... and also what you mean by waste heat as you mentioned earlier. To me that is an odd way of looking at the interaction of the sun with the earth. The idea of radiation doing work would make more sense with a photocell running a motor. But when it comes to nature, the work is quite indirect and really can't be seen as a separated entity. For example the sun would not be able to do much work in the ocean if there were no GHG's and the surface were frozen solid. So I think of it as being a complex interplay where neither source of radiation alone has too much meaning when it comes to mechanical work.


----------



## SSDD (May 24, 2016)

IanC said:


> I know you live to chant your mantra of 'not a single shred of measured ...' but it is not true.



Of course its true..



IanC said:


> Has the CO2 content of the atmosphere been measured?



Why yes it has...but there isn't a shred of observed measured quantified evidence that rising CO2 causes warming....think in circles much?



IanC said:


> Does the increase in CO2 correspond to the amount of fossil fuels we have burnt?



Of course it doesn't...



IanC said:


> That is the first leg of AGW. If you agree, we can go on, if you disagree then state where and why.



I don't. because it simply isn't true...AGW doesn't have a single leg to stand on...


----------



## IanC (May 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I know you live to chant your mantra of 'not a single shred of measured ...' but it is not true.
> ...




So you deny that mankind's burning of fossil fuels has anything to do with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Well, that pretty much stops the conversation right there. Personally I'm surprised that you didn't categorically deny that CO2 had increased as well. Hahahaha


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 24, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



The derp is strong in that one.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> and now, science by consensus.



You really do not have the first clue as to how science evolves?  No clue that unless there is an overwhelming consensus on a finding or theory, nothing in science is regarded as "established science"?

But that's actually helpful to sort your contributions into the "crank" category wherein it rightfully belongs, for now we have observed and undeniable evidence for that judgment.


----------



## SSDD (May 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> So you deny that mankind's burning of fossil fuels has anything to do with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere?



Wow...you are getting to be as dishonest as crick.....what's up with that?  Sure burning fossil fuels has added some CO2 to the atmosphere...but there isn't a bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that more CO2 equals more warming...much less that our bit of CO2 causes more warming.



IanC said:


> Well, that pretty much stops the conversation right there. Personally I'm surprised that you didn't categorically deny that CO2 had increased as well. Hahahaha



Nah...it's your dishonesty that stops the conversation...I said explicitly that there was no observed, measured, quantified evidence that rising CO2 causes warming....what sort of crazy do you have going on in your brain that translates that to a denial that CO2 is rising?....you sure get defensive when your beliefs are questioned....don't you?


----------



## SSDD (May 25, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > and now, science by consensus.
> ...



It is clear that it is you who has no clue as to how science is supposed to evolve...do you have any idea how many long established bits of consensus...science is settled....long held beliefs have crashed and burned in the past decade?  The stress theory of ulcers for one....the overwhelming consensus position that quasicrystals can't exist...the belief that cholesterol causes heart disease...the consensus on the ingestion of fats is crumbling as is the consensus on the part salt takes in heart disease....the fact is, that in science, the consensus is wrong much of the time and in new branches of science like climate science, the consensus is wrong damned near all the time....Take a few minutes to learn something about the value of consensus...especially when the consensus is supported by money and politics...

In actual science, a hypothesis is proposed and immediately experiments are designed to prove it false...how much of that is going on in climate science?...or any field of science today?...  Today science is about trying to find evidence to prop up a hypothesis and often contrary evidence is discarded or ignored....



Olde Europe said:


> But that's actually helpful to sort your contributions into the "crank" category wherein it rightfully belongs, for now we have observed and undeniable evidence for that judgment.


[/quote]

It is interesting to see the true cranks such as yourself who believe that consensus is the path of true science accusing those who want science to behave as it is supposed to behave if not influenced by politics, money, and the pressure to publish cranks...



Olde Europe said:


> It is obvious that you are the one who has no clue...



Well...one of us doesn't have a clue....and that would be the one who believes that consensus is anything other than a political mechanism...here is a brief overview of what the scientific method is...you will note that consensus....or anything like consensus isn't mentioned...and if you can be honest with yourself even in the least, you will see that little of the actual scientific method is practiced in climate science..



> The *scientific method* is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.The _Oxford English Dictionary_ defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
> 
> The scientific method is an ongoing process, which usually begins with observations about the natural world. Human beings are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with questions about things they see or hear and often develop ideas (hypotheses) about why things are the way they are. The best hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in various ways, including making further observations about nature. In general, the strongest tests of hypotheses come from carefully controlled and replicated experiments that gather empirical data. Depending on how well the tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may require refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection. If a particular hypothesis becomes very well supported a general theory may be developed.
> 
> ...


----------



## Olde Europe (May 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> here is a brief overview of what the scientific method is...you will note that consensus....or anything like consensus isn't mentioned..



Ah, so we were talking about the *evolution* of science (and no, science does not claim to be in possession of the truth at any part of any inquiry), and you give me a summary of the *scientific method*, plainly explaining that you have no clue as to the distinction.  Other than that, you're reduced to crank conspiracy theories ("influenced by politics, money, and the pressure to publish cranks"), which is correct concerning the denialists' financing by Koch et. al., yet not regarding real scientific research.

I find it actually disconcerting to see so much brain power, eloquence, time and effort put in, with but one result, that is, you discrediting and debasing yourself.


----------



## Wuwei (May 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> .here is a brief overview of what the scientific method is.


Quite a bit of hypocrisy in a "lecture" coming from a simpleton who doesn't believe in quantum mechanics, relativity, or the laws of radiation thermodynamics.


----------



## IanC (May 25, 2016)

SSDD - now you are changing your story again.

You asked for any shred of evidence of the A in AGW. When I said that as a first step we had to agree that CO2 had increased and was linked in part with the burning of fossil fuels, you said 'of course not'.

Now you say you agree? Then just say it. CO2 has increased and fossil fuel use is part of the reason for the increase.


----------



## SSDD (May 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD - now you are changing your story again.
> 
> You asked for any shred of evidence of the A in AGW. When I said that as a first step we had to agree that CO2 had increased and was linked in part with the burning of fossil fuels, you said 'of course not'.
> 
> Now you say you agree? Then just say it. CO2 has increased and fossil fuel use is part of the reason for the increase.



No Ian...I have no need to change my story...Of course CO2 has increased somewhat due to fossil fuels...but there isn't the first shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that increasing CO2 will cause the temperature to increase....you are simply assuming, based on failed models that increasing the atmospheric CO2 will result in increased atmospheric temperature....the failure of the hot spot to materialize should be the first clue to you that the hypothesis is flawed....second should be the steadily increasing atmospheric CO2 while temperatures remain static...assumption does not equal observed, measured, quantified evidence no matter how much you apparently wish it did.


----------



## SSDD (May 25, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .here is a brief overview of what the scientific method is.
> ...



Sorry guy...it is you who must "interpret" the laws of thermodynamics in an effort to have them mean what you wish...I accept them at face value...as they are stated...and they do not mention two way energy flows...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Smart photons say...DERP!


----------



## SSDD (May 25, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > here is a brief overview of what the scientific method is...you will note that consensus....or anything like consensus isn't mentioned..
> ...



You claimed that science was done by consensus...and that consensus was required for a thing to be called "established" science as if the term established science means anything at all without observed, measured, quantified data to back it up...

And it is no conspiracy theory that no observed, measured, quantified data exists that supports the A in AGW as evidenced by the inability of anyone to provide such data...every bit of data that has been produced has supported something...but not the A in AGW...but hey...feel free to prove me wrong by showing me some actual observed, measured, quantified data gathered from out in the real world that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...or continue to talk while not providing any such data and further prove my point...


----------



## Wuwei (May 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy...it is you who must "interpret" the laws of thermodynamics in an effort to have them mean what you wish...I accept them at face value...as they are stated...and they do not mention two way energy flows...


Don't make it personal. Your "interpretation" is totally different than every other scientist. "Face value" is not a scientific assessment. Therefore it is you personally who is making it mean what you wish, and it is you personally who has failed to understand science. Probably because you don't believe in it. Go ahead and live in the dark ages. Watch the "shadows inside the cave". You have lost the respect of everyone on this board, (except for your dim minded minions.)


----------



## IanC (May 25, 2016)

SSDD has begrudgingly  conceded that CO2 has been measured to have increased, with at least partial attribution due to fossil fuel use.

A good start.

Next leg. Have global temps warmed during the instrumental period since the 1880's? I don't want to digress into the politics of which method is the right one. They are all wrong but it makes surprisingly little difference which one you use. Every method shows warming, and an absolute average of about 15C, give or take a couple of degrees.

Can we agree to some warming, without worrying about the attribution yet?


----------



## jc456 (May 25, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy...it is you who must "interpret" the laws of thermodynamics in an effort to have them mean what you wish...I accept them at face value...as they are stated...and they do not mention two way energy flows...
> ...


*every other scientist*

You really believe that?  Really?  'EVERY'?  You discussed with every scientist and can in fact make that statement?  wow.  Dude you must really be someone. forgive me while I have a little chuckle.....a giggle and then a knee slapping gut laugh.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You know of another scientist who believes in SSDD's "smart photons"?


----------



## jc456 (May 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD has begrudgingly  conceded that CO2 has been measured to have increased, with at least partial attribution due to fossil fuel use.
> 
> A good start.
> 
> ...


who has ever stated that man doesn't contribute CO2?  the argument is what about it?  So what? Prove it means anything.  That's the argument.  

And I know I've stated that the earth has warmed since 1880, just not in the last 18+ years.  Again, not sure where you got all that?  And finally, the discussion has always been about the added 120 PPM of CO2 and it having any affect on climate.  THAT IS THE DISCUSSION.

So let's stay on point.

Ian, that was a real wander on your part.


----------



## jc456 (May 25, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


I never went looking and have no need to.  The statement was ludicrous and funny.

BTW, i believe he posted a few in his time in here. Happer I believe was one.


----------



## SSDD (May 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD has begrudgingly  conceded that CO2 has been measured to have increased, with at least partial attribution due to fossil fuel use.



Lie much Ian?....sure seems so..  There was no  "begrudging" to it...I never questioned the fact that CO2 had increased...so what?  That isn't the issue...the issue is that there is absolutely no actual evidence that increasing CO2 will raise global temperatures....it's all assumption and models based on assumption and bad physics.



IanC said:


> Next leg. Have global temps warmed during the instrumental period since the 1880's? I don't want to digress into the politics of which method is the right one. They are all wrong but it makes surprisingly little difference which one you use. Every method shows warming, and an absolute average of about 15C, give or take a couple of degrees.



You aren't going to even begin to support the A in AGW along that tack because the increase in temperature we have seen in the past 100 years is well within the boundaries of natural variability...how do you prove that it is not natural variability in order to begin to prove that man is responsible?



IanC said:


> Can we agree to some warming, without worrying about the attribution yet?



Perhaps some small fraction of the claimed warming or perhaps some cooling since the 1940's...the temperature record has been so corrupted by manipulation and outright tampering that I doubt that anyone actually knows what the temperature is right now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes, "smart photons" is ludicrous.


----------



## SSDD (May 25, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy...it is you who must "interpret" the laws of thermodynamics in an effort to have them mean what you wish...I accept them at face value...as they are stated...and they do not mention two way energy flows...
> ...



Again...I am not interpreting anything at all...it is you and yours who are interpreting...I take the second law at face value when it states that energy won't move spontaneously from a low temperature object to a high temperature object...to claim that the statement is a statement of net energy transfer is an interpretation because that is not what it says...


----------



## SSDD (May 25, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



They make claims regarding all scientists like they make claims regarding the power of CO2....it is all just made up as they go in an attempt to convince anyone they can to join them in their fantasy...


----------



## Wuwei (May 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Again...I am not interpreting anything at all...it is you and yours who are interpreting...I take the second law at face value when it states that energy won't move spontaneously from a low temperature object to a high temperature object...to claim that the statement is a statement of net energy transfer is an interpretation because that is not what it says...


Since you are claiming the primary laws of thermodynamics are different than all the greatest scientists of the past 150 years, I would definitely say you are interpreting them with a false hubris. The 2nd law was never ever stated as a one way radiation flow between objects. Only you think that. The 2nd law always works for a net flow. All scientists understand that. You lift words out of a statement without understanding the meaning of the words. There is a lot more beneath the "face value" that you fail to understand.


----------



## Wuwei (May 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> They make claims regarding all scientists like they make claims regarding the power of CO2....it is all just made up as they go in an attempt to convince anyone they can to join them in their fantasy...



The half dozen or so quotes on the nature of two-way radiation I gave earlier were from over 100 years ago - long before Al Gore, and long before global warming was the big public issue it is today. Global warming isn't the problem with you. your major problem is understanding science.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> You claimed that science was done by consensus...and that consensus was required for a thing to be called "established" science as if the term established science means anything at all without observed, measured, quantified data to back it up...
> 
> And it is no conspiracy theory that no observed, measured, quantified data exists that supports the A in AGW as evidenced by the inability of anyone to provide such data...every bit of data that has been produced has supported something...but not the A in AGW...but hey...feel free to prove me wrong by showing me some actual observed, measured, quantified data gathered from out in the real world that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...or continue to talk while not providing any such data and further prove my point...



So, now you are misreading me, a second time, after I pointed out to you that I was talking about "the *evolution* of science", not how "science is done"?  You think when some unknown patent clerk in Switzerland wrote down some scurrilous, novel theory on 16 pages, certainly based on observed and measured data and the laws and principles of physics derived from this data, the world of physics had changed?  Nope, it didn't, not one whit.  First, he had to have that thing published, which itself isn't all that easy (that's called "peer review").  After publication, the lesser and greater, and the greatest physical minds of the time took turns to tear that novel theory apart.  Only when they realized they couldn't, and first experiments seemed to confirm the paper's findings, something like a consensus amongst physicists emerged, and "relativity" was accepted into what constituted established physics.  But you wouldn't know that because you're an ignoramus with an agenda who knows a host of things that aren't so.

Moreover, asking for measured proof of A in AGW is asking for measured data on whether humans caused changes in the earth's climate.  It's been explained to you that causation cannot be measured, just inferred.  You didn't let that sink in, maybe you even failed to understand that, because you're an ignoramus with an agenda who knows a host of things that aren't so.



SSDD said:


> I take the second law at face value when it states that energy won't move spontaneously from a low temperature object to a high temperature object.



Laughable.  That is not at all what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says.  Assume a ball (20°C) hits another ball (100°C), transferring all the colder ball's kinetic energy to the hotter ball.  So, have I now disproved the Second Law?  Of course not.  The Second Law concerns itself with net heat flows (which isn't the same as energy flows).  It's also been explained to you that radiation is not the same as heat, and thus radiation traveling from a colder to a warmer object does not violate the Second Law - just as the colder ball transferring kinetic energy to the hotter ball doesn't violate it. But you would carefully avoid to understand that, because you're an ignoramus with an agenda who knows a host of things that aren't so.

So, all you need to know about the A in AGW is increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere due to our fossil fuel addiction.  All the rest is established physics, most notably the greenhouse effect, which alters the earth's atmosphere's heat trapping properties, and thus the earth's energy balance.  That is because of increased back radiation, which means the earth loses less energy to space than it did during pre-industrial times.  But you would not know and also not understand that - you probably guessed by now - because you're an ignoramus with an agenda who knows a host of things that aren't so.

On a last note, your unjustifiably over-confident bluster doesn't compensate for your ignorance.  Just so you know.


----------



## SSDD (May 26, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Again...I am not interpreting anything at all...it is you and yours who are interpreting...I take the second law at face value when it states that energy won't move spontaneously from a low temperature object to a high temperature object...to claim that the statement is a statement of net energy transfer is an interpretation because that is not what it says...
> ...



Don't you suppose that all of the greatest scientists of theist 150 years had the language skills to state that energy transfer was a net process when the physical laws were written if that were the case?  

I take the statement at face value and there is nothing there about net energy flow.


----------



## SSDD (May 26, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> Moreover, asking for measured proof of A in AGW is asking for measured data on whether humans caused changes in the earth's climate.  It's been explained to you that causation cannot be measured, just inferred.  You didn't let that sink in, maybe you even failed to understand that, because you're an ignoramus with an agenda who knows a host of things that aren't so.



We might start with some observed, measured, quantified data supporting the claim that a 100ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 causes X change....we might start by some actual repeatable laboratory experimentation...we might start with something other than an unsupported assumption.




Olde Europe said:


> Laughable.  That is not at all what the Second Law of Thermodynamics says.



Of course it is...  This is what the second law says according to the physics department at Georgia State University...if you have a problem with the wording...take it up with them.

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.



Olde Europe said:


> So, all you need to know about the A in AGW is increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere due to our fossil fuel addiction.



So what...where is the observed, measured, quantified evidence that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has any measurable effect on the climate....at this point it is an assumption....nothing more and the models based on that assumption are failing miserably. 



Olde Europe said:


> All the rest is established physics, most notably the greenhouse effect, which alters the earth's atmosphere's heat trapping properties, and thus the earth's energy balance.



Really?...then why, I wonder does the greenhouse hypothesis not even come close to predicting the temperature of any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...and can't even predict the temperature here without a fudge factor....hell...it even failed at predicting the temperature of the moon...  Quantify the greenhouse effect without a fudge factor...quantify how much a specific increase in CO2 will increase the temperature....go ahead...mr "i understand science"...lets see your figures.



Olde Europe said:


> That is because of increased back radiation, which means the earth loses less energy to space than it did during pre-industrial times.  But you would not know and also not understand that - you probably guessed by now - because you're an ignoramus with an agenda who knows a host of things that aren't so.



And yet, back radiation can not be measured at ambient temperature even though it is supposed to be double the amount of energy coming in from the sun even though there is no problem measuring the incoming radiation from the sun at ambient temperature.



Olde Europe said:


> On a last note, your unjustifiably over-confident bluster doesn't compensate for your ignorance.  Just so you know.



I am asking for information that any competent field of science could produce in abundance, in a flash...you continue to not produce....I am afraid that it is you who is expressing profound ignorance in stating your beliefs.


----------



## Wuwei (May 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Don't you suppose that all of the greatest scientists of theist 150 years had the language skills to state that energy transfer was a net process when the physical laws were written if that were the case?
> 
> I take the statement at face value and there is nothing there about net energy flow.


C'mon. The greatest scientists of the last 150 years never used the wording of the second law you covet.

There are lots of ways the second law has been written in text books and web sites in science. Many say simply *heat* cannot spontaneously flow from a cold to a hot object. Some use the phrase "*net energy*" rather than heat. I guarantee you that any site that simply use the word "energy" is referring to "*heat energy*" or "*net energy*" because of the context.

Why don't you give me the reference that you are using that simply uses a sentence similar to, "*Energy *cannot flow from a colder to a hotter object." Then let's see if it was meant to be at "face value", what ever that means.

Edit: I just read your previous email that you are referring to Georgia State. Give me the reference.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Moreover, asking for measured proof of A in AGW is asking for measured data on whether humans caused changes in the earth's climate.  It's been explained to you that causation cannot be measured, just inferred.  You didn't let that sink in, maybe you even failed to understand that, because you're an ignoramus with an agenda who knows a host of things that aren't so.
> ...



*It is not possible for **heat** to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any **work** having been done to accomplish this flow.
*
So we can send photons from a flash light to the surface of the Sun, because our photons are created by work?

I guess the important question is, how do the photons know if they're created by work?


----------



## Wuwei (May 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.


I found the site on which you are basing your smart photons. You said it came from Georgia state. You lifted two sentences verbatim, and you quoted them out of context. This is the source.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/imgheat/ref2.gif

This is the full context:
------------------------------------------
*Second Law: Refrigerator*
Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles.​
This is the "second form" or Clausius statement of the second law.


---------------------------------------

That wording of the law has *nothing *to do with radiation thermodynamics. It is about *REFRIGERATORS*! That law was discovered by Clausius long before photons were discovered!

Your stance total insanity and ranks among the worst in intellectual dishonesty I ever saw.


----------



## Wuwei (May 26, 2016)

Oops, I gave the wrong link for the site I referenced. This is the link:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html


----------



## SSDD (May 26, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
> ...



Are you really that stupid?...Do you think refrigerators are subject to some different sort of physics than everything else in the universe....Read what it says you moron... spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area would constitute a perfect refrigerator....it is telling you, if you had half a brain that energy doesn't move spontaneously from hot to cold...in case you weren't aware, every form of energy, and every form of machine is slave to the second law...refrigerator physics are the same as hydroelectric physics....it is all energy and all energy is slave to the second law of thermodynamics...


----------



## SSDD (May 26, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Oops, I gave the wrong link for the site I referenced. This is the link:
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html




Guess you didn't actually read the information there...you simply saw the word refrigerator and in your stupidity thought that there was a special second law of thermodynamics for refrigerators....guess you also think there is a special 2nd law for heat engines, and hydroelectric dams, and electrons running along an electric wire...and rocks rolling down mountains...it's all the same you goofball..

At the top of the page it explains in very clear terms...The second law of thermodynamics is a general principle which places constraints upon the direction of heat transfer and the attainable efficiencies of heat engines. In so doing, it goes beyond the limitations imposed by the first law of thermodynamics. It's implications may be visualized in terms of the waterfall analogy.

The part discussing refrigerators and the movement of energy from warm to cool is the section that applies to the atmosphere...I can't believe that you actually think that refrigerators fall under some special case second law of thermodynamics....how ignorant can one person get...?

The more you talk the more I see how you came to be taken in by the AGW scam....


----------



## Wuwei (May 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Are you really that stupid?...Do you think refrigerators are subject to some different sort of physics than everything else in the universe....Read what it says you moron.


Your bluster and insults cannot save you from the fact that you are an intellectual fraud.


SSDD said:


> spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area would constitute a perfect refrigerator....it is telling you, if you had half a brain that energy doesn't move spontaneously from hot to cold.


It is amazing that you don't recognize the self contradiction of that statement. It says spontaneous flow of* heat*... and then you immediately say it tells you something about *energy*. What you don't understand is that heat is a form of energy, but energy is not always heat. You are conflating the two.


SSDD said:


> in case you weren't aware, every form of energy, and every form of machine is slave to the second law...refrigerator physics are the same as hydroelectric physics....it is all energy and all energy is slave to the second law of thermodynamics.


I'm certainly aware of what the second law means. Radiation exchange between two objects does not ever violate the second law which involves spontaneous *heat *exchange.

I'm sorry but you just can't talk your way out of your fraud.T


----------



## Wuwei (May 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> The part discussing refrigerators and the movement of energy from warm to cool is the section that applies to the atmosphere...I can't believe that you actually think that refrigerators fall under some special case second law of thermodynamics....how ignorant can one person get...?
> 
> The more you talk the more I see how you came to be taken in by the AGW scam.....


Now you are really showing your lack of understanding - to think that refrigeration with pumps and freon has anything to do with radiation between objects. Yes they both follow the second law, but with an entirely different process.

You are so confused about radiation and refrigeration that you again try to divert your lack of understanding to AGW. I am not talking about AGW here. I'm talking about basic radiation physics. You are misrepresenting that, and that is pure intellectual fraudulence.


----------



## jc456 (May 26, 2016)

http://www.climate-change-theory.com/Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures.pdf

"ABSTRACT
The paper explains why the physics involved in atmospheric and sub-surface heat transfer appears to have been misunderstood, and incorrectly applied, when postulating that a radiative “greenhouse effect” is responsible for warming the surfaces of planets such as Venus and our own Earth. A detailed discussion of the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics endeavours to settle the much debated issue as to whether or not a thermal gradient evolves spontaneously in still air in a gravitational field. The author is aware of attempted rebuttals of this hypothesis, but cogent counter arguments are presented, together with reference to empirical evidence."


----------



## jc456 (May 26, 2016)

Hans Jelbring: The Greenhouse Effect as a function of atmospheric Mass

*"PREFACE by Hans Jelbring 2-1- 2012*
My 2003 E&E article (peer reviewed) was strictly applying 1st principle physics relating to a model atmosphere. Very strong conclusions can be made about such a model atmosphere and less strong ones about our real atmosphere. This was not discussed for reaching a maximum of simplicity and clarity approaching an educated but laymen audience.  However, an investigating professional climate scientists should just reach one of three results; a) my logic is wrong, b) the major part of the Greenhouse Effect is always at hand in any (dense) atmosphere and c) any of the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics or the ideal gas law is invalid. It turned out that there was a fourth option: My article could be ignored by the establishment which it has been during 8 years. This seems to be a significant result relating to the moral of leading climate scientists in western countries. If my conclusions are correct it would have had far reaching impact on climate science and climate politics in 2003. It might still have for a number of reasons.

*THE “GREENHOUSE EFFECT”*
* AS A FUNCTION OF ATMOSPHERIC MASS*
* Hans Jelbring 2003*

*ABSTRACT*
The main reason for claiming a scientific basis for “Anthropogenic Greenhouse
Warming (AGW )” is related to the use of “radiative energy flux models” as a
major tool for describing vertical energy fluxes within the atmosphere. Such
models prescribe that the temperature difference between a planetary surface and
the planetary average black body radiation temperature (commonly called the
Greenhouse Effect, GE) is caused almost exclusively by the so called greenhouse
gases. Here, using a different approach, it is shown that GE can be explained as
mainly being a consequence of known physical laws describing the behaviour of
ideal gases in a gravity field. A simplified model of Earth, along with a formal
proof concerning the model atmosphere and evidence from real planetary
atmospheres will help in reaching conclusions. The distinguishing premise is that
the bulk part of a planetary GE depends on its atmospheric surface mass density.
Thus the GE can be exactly calculated for an ideal planetary model atmosphere. In
a real atmosphere some important restrictions have to be met if the gravity induced
GE is to be well developed. It will always be partially developed on atmosphere
bearing planets. A noteworthy implication is that the calculated values of AGW,
accepted by many contemporary climate scientists, are thus irrelevant and
probably quite insignificant (not detectable) in relation to natural processes
causing climate change."


----------



## IanC (May 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Hans Jelbring: The Greenhouse Effect as a function of atmospheric Mass
> 
> *"PREFACE by Hans Jelbring 2-1- 2012*
> My 2003 E&E article (peer reviewed) was strictly applying 1st principle physics relating to a model atmosphere. Very strong conclusions can be made about such a model atmosphere and less strong ones about our real atmosphere. This was not discussed for reaching a maximum of simplicity and clarity approaching an educated but laymen audience.  However, an investigating professional climate scientists should just reach one of three results; a) my logic is wrong, b) the major part of the Greenhouse Effect is always at hand in any (dense) atmosphere and c) any of the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics or the ideal gas law is invalid. It turned out that there was a fourth option: My article could be ignored by the establishment which it has been during 8 years. This seems to be a significant result relating to the moral of leading climate scientists in western countries. If my conclusions are correct it would have had far reaching impact on climate science and climate politics in 2003. It might still have for a number of reasons.
> ...




I think it is funny that jc is the one championing this cause after all the times I have encouraged SSDD to do the same.

Energy storage via potential energy in a gravity field is an important facet of our climate system. It is the framework that all other factors act on. But gravity and atmospheric mass are already in equilibrium. It is other smaller factors that make the finishing touches.


----------



## IanC (May 26, 2016)

The next leg of AGW is measurements of radiation absorption and emission by different materials, whether as single substances or as compounds. 

There have been thousands of experiments, thousands of results, logged in thousands of texts and reports, that quantify the findings.

Does anyone really dispute this information?


----------



## IanC (May 26, 2016)

Report of a new study stating the obvious over at WUWT. Spring comes sooner in areas affected by UHIE. Well, duh! Who hasn't noticed that before?


----------



## Olde Europe (May 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> We might start with some observed, measured, quantified data supporting the claim that a 100ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 causes X change....we might start by some actual repeatable laboratory experimentation...we might start with something other than an unsupported assumption.



For laughing out loud.  The Greenhouse Effect is recognized for 150 years, and experiments on the heat-trapping properties of CO2 have been conducted for more than half a century.  Here's a nice run-down of that history.

The short answer is, the earth radiates about 0.6 to 1 W/m² less energy than it takes in (yes, that's actual measurements from satellites measuring the planet's radiation), and this reduction in irradiance is concentrated around spectra / wavelengths that match the resorption patterns of the major greenhouse gasses.  This excess energy represents, in the form of heat, the earth's heating trend, mostly warming up the oceans storing north of 90% of the excess heat.



SSDD said:


> "It is not possible for *heat* to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow."



Bingo.



SSDD said:


> I wonder does the greenhouse hypothesis not even come close to predicting the temperature of any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere.



Part of the SS as brought forward by SSDD.  How about a link, and, if I may ask, to a reputable source, not to some obscure page on some obscure right-wing blog out of the denialist blabbosphere, please.

The rest of your questions have been answered on this thread, and I am not going to reiterate any of that just to discover that we've been throwing information at a brick wall, and that - after weeks - nothing sticks.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 26, 2016)

IanC said:


> I think it is funny that jc is the one championing this cause after all the times I have encouraged SSDD to do the same.



What does this...

My article could be *ignored by the establishment* which it has been during 8 years. [...]​
*5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT*
The author thanks Inventex Aqua ab, Ekero, Sweden for the financial support without which this paper would not have been produced and *two brave anonymous peer reviewers* making the publication a fact.​
... tell you?

Oh, and did you understand the climate model he cooked up in his paper?  The one with no energy influx, and no energy out-flux, no clouds, no water vapor, no changes in albedo etc. etc. etc.?  Did that make any sense to you?


----------



## IanC (May 26, 2016)

The satellite measurements of incoming and outgoing radiation are done by different instruments, and over differing time ranges. The information is then pieced together with a difference of 0.65w as a best guess calibration.

You can observe the increases and decreases with respect to time but to claim that they can accurately measure the difference between the two down to a fraction of a watt is absurd.


----------



## IanC (May 26, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is funny that jc is the one championing this cause after all the times I have encouraged SSDD to do the same.
> ...




Please, go ahead and explain it to us in your own words. We are all looking forward to it.

There have been several debunking of the Greenhouse Effect. They typically depend on line fitting and circular reasoning that simply outputs what they input as an assumption.

But I will certainly discuss it with you if you hold up your end by showing you have even a basic understanding of the claim.


----------



## IanC (May 26, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is funny that jc is the one championing this cause after all the times I have encouraged SSDD to do the same.
> ...



Perhaps I misunderstood your comment.

Are you attacking the peer review system? It is meant to catch flagrant mistakes in data and methodology not to argue the merits of the underlying idea.

Peer review in climate science has been quite poor over the last few decades, at least when it applies to welcome papers from the right side of the consensus.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 26, 2016)

IanC said:


> But I will certainly discuss it with you if you hold up your end by showing you have even a basic understanding of the claim.



I really have no interest in discussing this crackpot nonsense.  Greenhouse effect as a function of gravity / density, with no influence from the composition of the atmosphere, based on a "model" that is quite like the atmosphere on earth, except for pretty much every characteristic attributed to that "model" atmosphere?  I guess, that "peer reviewed" paper is being consistently ignored by the "establishment" for a reason, and a damned good one.

I think I have seen you reference the like before, and found it to be off-the-wall crank science.  The paper made absolutely no sense to me, and I just wanted to ask whether you actually put credence in that.  Seemingly you do, and so... knock yourself out.


----------



## Wuwei (May 26, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > But I will certainly discuss it with you if you hold up your end by showing you have even a basic understanding of the claim.
> ...


If I may interject, I already analyzed this in a different thread since it is such a popular "alternate" model. The theory by Hans Jelbring 2003 is very similar to the theory of Nikolov and Zeller. They both rely on adiabatic heating. The following is a copy and paste of what I wrote the thread, "In support of the A in AGW."
-------------------------------
Adiabatic heating occurs as a reversible process when *work is done. *According to the authors the work is the gravitational force. In experiments the adiabatic process must take place before any heat can dissipate otherwise it is not reversible. If it's done quickly there is not enough time for any energy to transfer as heat to or from the system.

Here is an example: your hand pump gets hot when pumping up a tire due to adiabatic compression. If you wait, heat will dissipate and the pump will cool down. At that point the process is no longer adiabatic.

In order for the atmosphere to be in an adiabatic condition. All the air must start out, say, a few hundred miles above the earth. When the air falls to the earth it will be compressed most at the lowest levels and be the hottest. At higher levels the pressure will be less and the atmosphere will be cooler according to the ideal gas law. That is the temperature profile the authors are referring to, and as they claim, is perhaps similar to the profile of planets.

However, what the authors fail to include is the fact that without external energy, the atmosphere will eventually even out to a uniform temperature after the initial adiabatic heat is dissipated. Our atmosphere does not do that. The reason of course is that there is thermal energy continually being pumped into the system from the sun; the earth warms; and radiates LWIR, etc.​-----------------------
I will be very disappointed if I don't get a "funny" rating from JC.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 26, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> If I may interject, I already analyzed this in a different thread since it is such a popular "alternate" model. The theory by Hans Jelbring 2003 is very similar to the theory of Nikolov and Zeller. They both rely on adiabatic heating. The following is a copy and paste of what I wrote the thread, "In support of the A in AW."



I recall having read your text, and, as far as I can tell, we agree.  The crackpot (Jelbring) has joined the leading European propaganda institute to spread denialist lies, the Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie (European Institute for Climate and Energy), a propaganda outfit associated with CFACT, and the Heartland Institute.  He could hardly have chosen nicer - and more revealing - company if he had chosen to snuggle up on one of the Koch's laps.  I consider that, speaking in terms of scientific stature, to be tantamount to suicide.


----------



## Vigilante (May 26, 2016)




----------



## SSDD (May 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> I think it is funny that jc is the one championing this cause after all the times I have encouraged SSDD to do the same.



Ian, Jelbring is arguing that atmospheric mass is the reason for the so called greenhouse effect.....which one of us rejects a radiative based greenhouse effect in favor of one based on atmospheric mass?  Here...from his conclusions...



> The main conclusion, derived from the model atmosphere of this paper, is the fact that there has to exist a substantial greenhouse effect (GE ) which is mass dependent and which will develop independently of the amount of greenhouse gases in any real planetary atmosphere. The generally claimed importance of “greenhouse” gases rests on an unproven hypothesis (ref 1). The hypothesis is based on radiative models of energy fluxes in our
> atmosphere. These are inadequate, since radiative processes within the atmosphere are poorly described, convective energy fluxes are often inadequately described or omitted, and latent heat fluxes are poorly treated. The whole GE in these models is wrongly claimed being caused by “greenhouse gases”. The considerations in this paper indicate that effects of the greenhouse gases, other radiative effects, and convection effects all might modulate GE to a minor unknown extent.



Contrary to your claims, it is me who has been encouraging you to give up your radiative greenhouse effect fantasy in favor of a hypothesis that is actually supported, and predicted by the laws of physics.



IanC said:


> Energy storage via potential energy in a gravity field is an important facet of our climate system. It is the framework that all other factors act on. But gravity and atmospheric mass are already in equilibrium. It is other smaller factors that make the finishing touches.



If the atmosphere were a static column of air, the temperature would reach equilibrium...they are not, however static and as such, the process never stops...there is no radiative greenhouse effect...the atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less.


----------



## SSDD (May 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> The next leg of AGW is measurements of radiation absorption and emission by different materials, whether as single substances or as compounds.
> 
> There have been thousands of experiments, thousands of results, logged in thousands of texts and reports, that quantify the findings.
> 
> Does anyone really dispute this information?



Absorption and emission do not equal warming


----------



## SSDD (May 27, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> For laughing out loud.  The Greenhouse Effect is recognized for 150 years, and experiments on the heat-trapping properties of CO2 have been conducted for more than half a century.  Here's a nice run-down of that history.



Guess you are unaware that professor Wood questioned that greenhouse hypothesis and proved it wrong within a year of its presentation...and it remained buried in the dust bin of history till the AGW scam began where it was brought out, dusted off and pushed on people with no critical thinking skills where it remains doing its intellectual damage today.

It has, as you said, been 150 years....so quantify it for me if it is such well established, settled science.



Olde Europe said:


> Bingo.



You forgot the next sentence where it said that energy would not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...and is heat a form of energy or is heat the "fingerprint" of energy moving from one place to another?



Olde Europe said:


> Part of the SS as brought forward by SSDD.  How about a link, and, if I may ask, to a reputable source, not to some obscure page on some obscure right-wing blog out of the denialist blabbosphere, please.



No need...you wouldn't question your faith if God himself told you that the greenhouse hypothesis was bullshit.



Olde Europe said:


> The rest of your questions have been answered on this thread, and I am not going to reiterate any of that just to discover that we've been throwing information at a brick wall, and that - after weeks - nothing sticks.



Actually, they haven't...but it is interesting that you believe what has been posted is an answer...


----------



## SSDD (May 27, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > spontaneous flow of heat from a cold area to a hot area would constitute a perfect refrigerator....it is telling you, if you had half a brain that energy doesn't move spontaneously from hot to cold.
> ...



Whoooo hoodoo..caught me in a typo...got a special victory dance for when you catch typos and spelling errors?...and maybe a special little routine when you catch a punctuation error?....catching the bastards using a comma when they should use a semicolon?

And is heat a form of energy or is heat the "fingerprint" of energy moving from one place to another?



Wuwei said:


> I'm certainly aware of what the second law means. Radiation exchange between two objects does not ever violate the second law which involves spontaneous *heat *exchange.



Except that isn't what it says..it is nothing more than your interpretation...


----------



## SSDD (May 27, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Now you are really showing your lack of understanding - to think that refrigeration with pumps and freon has anything to do with radiation between objects. Yes they both follow the second law, but with an entirely different process.



You really are behind the curve aren't you?....those pumps are providing the work necessary to make energy move from cold to warm...without them, energy can't move in that direction...are you really this ignorant or are you just being obtuse? 



Wuwei said:


> You are so confused about radiation and refrigeration that you again try to divert your lack of understanding to AGW. I am not talking about AGW here. I'm talking about basic radiation physics. You are misrepresenting that, and that is pure intellectual fraudulence.



It is the flawed radiation physics that climate science is working with that are the reason that the models are failing so miserably....the atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 is zero or less...refrigerators, CO2...rocks rolling down hill..they are all slaves to the second law and energy simply won't move spontaneously from cold to warm.


----------



## SSDD (May 27, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > But I will certainly discuss it with you if you hold up your end by showing you have even a basic understanding of the claim.
> ...



Funny thing is that that crackpot theory accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even predict the temperature here without a fudge factor...



Wuwei said:


> I think I have seen you reference the like before, and found it to be off-the-wall crank science.  The paper made absolutely no sense to me, and I just wanted to ask whether you actually put credence in that.  Seemingly you do, and so... knock yourself out.



Of course it doesn't..but magic CO2 multipliers make perfect sense...Got it.


----------



## SSDD (May 27, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> -------------------------------
> Adiabatic heating occurs as a reversible process when *work is done. *According to the authors the work is the gravitational force. In experiments the adiabatic process must take place before any heat can dissipate otherwise it is not reversible. If it's done quickly there is not enough time for any energy to transfer as heat to or from the system.​




Failure right out of the gate....all thermodynamic processes in nature are irreversible...

SECOND LAW


> _Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. All natural processes are irreversible._



http://web.pdx.edu/~bseipel/The Laws of Thermodynamic2.pdf


> Heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible.


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


dude the really funny line is this one:
*The following is a copy and paste of what I wrote the thread, "In support of the A in AGW."*
You are in that thread.  Now dude, that is funny.

Now s0n, I posted a link that explains my position and in fact explains very well why a planet may or may not hold heat at the surface.  Now let's see yours, one that was actually tested.

Shows the violation of the Second Law.


----------



## Wuwei (May 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Whoooo hoodoo..caught me in a typo...got a special victory dance for when you catch typos and spelling errors?...and maybe a special little routine when you catch a punctuation error?....catching the bastards using a comma when they should use a semicolon?


It wasn't a typo. It is your usual confusion in using "energy" and "thermal energy" as though they were the same thing. That same confusion befuddles you in your idea that photons from a cold object cannot hit a hot object.


SSDD said:


> Except that isn't what it says..it is nothing more than your interpretation...


Radiation exchange between two objects does not ever violate the second law in spontaneous *heat *exchange.
It's not an interpretation. And it's not my interpretation. Every scientist who knows thermodynamics knows that it comes from quantum mechanics.


----------



## Wuwei (May 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> You really are behind the curve aren't you?....those pumps are providing the work necessary to make energy move from cold to warm...without them, energy can't move in that direction...are you really this ignorant or are you just being obtuse?


You didn't understand my comment. You were the one who equated refrigeration thermodynamics with radiation thermodynamics. And you say I'm behind the curve? 
Let me spell it out again for you. Refrigeration uses pumps and freon. Radiation involves neither. They are different processes yet both follow the second law. I can't make it any clearer than that for you. You recited a wording that was specifically for refrigeration. But we aren't talking about refrigeration. I don't know why you brought it up in the first place.


SSDD said:


> ...energy simply won't move spontaneously from cold to warm.


By *energy*, you mean* thermal energy*. Photons can move anywhere.


----------



## Wuwei (May 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > -------------------------------
> ...



Bingo! For once you got something right. That is precisely why the works of Jelbring, Kikolov and Zeller are wrong. They are saying that an adiabatic processes explains the thermal profile of the atmosphere, and they are dead wrong.


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Venus actually is validation that back radiation doesn't exist.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The atmosphere of Venus doesn't radiate in all directions? Why not?


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


nope.  but do pray tell why is the surface cooler than the atmosphere.  I'll wait.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



In which specific directions does the atmosphere radiate? Why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
but do pray tell why is the surface cooler than the atmosphere.
*
_The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius). Temperature changes slightly traveling through the atmosphere, growing cooler farther away from the surface. Lead would melt on the surface of the planet, where the temperature is around 872 F (467 C). Temperatures are cooler in the upper atmosphere, ranging from (minus 43 C) to (minus 173 C). - See more at: How Hot is Venus?_


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


it doesn't and why the surface on venus is cooler than the atmosphere.


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I already did and posted the link to the explanation and experiment.  So now where is yours with your back radiation hypothesis testing?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*it doesn't*

It doesn't radiate at all?
Does it absorb energy? Or is it magic there too?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You posted an experiment that shows atmosphere doesn't radiate? LOL!


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


asked and answered.


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I guess you didn't read the material I posted. Seems like if you really were interested, you would have actually read it.  Oh well, the circle jerk with you is over, you have no evidence for your back radiation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



And your answer was............?


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2016)

SSDD I guess no one in here can actually debate the subject cause they have no evidence to support the violation of the second law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



If you posted an experiment that showed the atmosphere doesn't radiate, I'm sure I looked at it and mocked your ignorance.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> SSDD I guess no one in here can actually debate the subject cause they have no evidence to support the violation of the second law.



There is no violation.


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


which means what? asked and answered.  Now it again is your turn.


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD I guess no one in here can actually debate the subject cause they have no evidence to support the violation of the second law.
> ...


sure there is and I posted that as well.

Still waiting for you bubba, you seem to be in a place where you have nothing to support your claim. and i've answered all your concerns with mine with evidence.


----------



## IanC (May 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...





Why don't you put down in your own words some of the salient points? Not many people are going to read the PDF without some background material to see if it is interesting enough.


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why don't you post an experiment that shows back radiation?  Why is it you and yours are always communicating one way here?  I've given you information on why I don't believe in back radiation.  I need go no further than point to an experiment that agrees with my point.  In fairness you should reciprocate that with one that shows yours.  Again, explain Venus on why the atmosphere is actually warmer than the surface the complete opposite of earth yet there are feedback gases of yours there?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*which means what?
*
Which means if you posted an experiment that showed the atmosphere doesn't radiate, I read it, pointed out its error or your error, or both.
And then I mocked your ignorance of physics.


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


s0n you act like I care what you say here.  I know you have no evidence to support your position.  circle jerking on the message board seems to be your enjoyment.  good for you.  I'm done with your play calling.


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2016)

In Support of the A in AGW

Already posted.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




*sure there is
*
Nope.
*
and I posted that as well.
*
Nope.

Two identical objects, one at 50K, the other at 100K.
Both radiating, the warmer 16 times as much as the cooler.
There is no violation when a photon from the cooler object hits the warmer object.
*
you seem to be in a place where you have nothing to support your claim.*

The SB Law supports my claim above. And refutes your claims.


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2016)

In Support of the A in AGW


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> In Support of the A in AGW
> 
> Already posted.



Thanks. On page 4, he says,

_"It is indeed correct to say that radiation from the atmosphere does slow the component of surface cooling which is itself by radiation_"

Do you want to post anything else to refute your claims?


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


here in my own words, I challenged the back radiation, I provided data from a peer reviewed scientist that the reason why an atmosphere would not radiate to the surface and yet, still absolutely nothing from these back radiation posters showing how it is possible.  weight, volume, mass, gravity, convection, pressure, and still they have not shown how to violate the second law.  hmmmmmmmmm


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > In Support of the A in AGW
> ...


LOL radiation, not reradiation.

He likened it to adding water to a lake, water doesn't add in one spot it equals out across the lake.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



_radiation from the atmosphere _

LOL! Your own source. Thanks.


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Sun radiates right?  guess where it comes from. Hahahahaahha let's see the back radiation.


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2016)

Oh Todd, you still haven't provided any experimental validation so I'm just going to close this off as you have none.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Sun radiates right?*

Yup. So does our atmosphere. Even your own source said so.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Oh Todd, you still haven't provided any experimental validation so I'm just going to close this off as you have none.



*you still haven't provided any experimental validation*

_"It is indeed correct to say that radiation from the atmosphere does slow the component of surface cooling which is itself by radiation_"

Derp!


----------



## IanC (May 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




I think you have the wrong impression of my position here. I want you to bring up the salient points because I think it has some merit. Especially as it pertains to the the climate model's handling of energy movement in slabs of the atmosphere.

I just don't want to champion it because it has weaknesses of its own. That doesn't mean it has no merit.

Point out the thought provoking ideas that have been ignored so that people here can glimpse a different side of the argument. I, for one, am all ears. Prove that you are informed and persuasive by making a coherent case for your position and then do your best to defend it against criticisms.


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


have you read Mcauley.  I found this today. I was reading your Quantum material. here's a read for you if you haven't.

Global Warming: Does CO2 Heat The Atmosphere? No ….


----------



## IanC (May 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Sure, and Ira G has written similar articles. Like I told Wuwei-, the problem with using variations of the equipartition equations is that THERE IS a temperature gradient! That THERE IS a difference in the type and amount of radiation that goes into the atmosphere at the surface and what comes out at any height you want to measure. And if that is not enough, then there is the potential energy being stored in the gravity field that is not 'detectable' as temperature change.


----------



## IanC (May 27, 2016)

A visual example from everyone's geometry past is a plane cutting through a cone to give the different curves. The two (or more) pieces match up exactly with their counterparts yet the cone IS changing size.


----------



## Wuwei (May 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> Sure, and Ira G has written similar articles. Like I told Wuwei-, the problem with using variations of the equipartition equations is that THERE IS a temperature gradient! That THERE IS a difference in the type and amount of radiation that goes into the atmosphere at the surface and what comes out at any height you want to measure. And if that is not enough, then there is the potential energy being stored in the gravity field that is not 'detectable' as temperature change.


Tom Vonk's article in Macauleys world is very well written. He promotes using equipartition as a very important local phenomenon as I did, and he also has a caveat that he is concerned with one aspect of CO2 in the atmosphere. There was no intention by either of us to say that the concept explains everything from ground to space, it emphasizes that CO2 is what I call a scattering medium no matter what the altitude. Your objection about the temperature gradient is well taken, but that wasn't the point of my original comment. I was simply addressing SSDD's objection that it is improbable for the same CO2 molecule to absorb and emit the same radiation at it's resonance frequency. It is a statistical ensemble in a local volume that does that. However Tom focus was to address the fact that CO2 does not directly transfer heat to the atmosphere.


----------



## IanC (May 27, 2016)

I get the point of equipartition for a local area. Do you get my point that energy input by radiation does not equal energy output on the other side of any realistic slab of atmosphere? The energy difference cannot just disappear. If it does not directly increase temperature then it is in a different pathway that is an equivalent to temperature increase. Stored potential energy, increased convection through density change, or something else.


----------



## Wuwei (May 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> I get the point of equipartition for a local area. Do you get my point that energy input by radiation does not equal energy output on the other side of any realistic slab of atmosphere? The energy difference cannot just disappear. If it does not directly increase temperature then it is in a different pathway that is an equivalent to temperature increase. Stored potential energy, increased convection through density change, or something else.


If I understand you I think your point is similar to an integral in calculus which is a limit of a sum of thin areas before the differences approach zero. I was looking at the infinitesimals whereas you are looking at the deltas. So yes I agree if that is your point. Or maybe my example of calculus is a bit awkward as an illustration.


----------



## IanC (May 27, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I get the point of equipartition for a local area. Do you get my point that energy input by radiation does not equal energy output on the other side of any realistic slab of atmosphere? The energy difference cannot just disappear. If it does not directly increase temperature then it is in a different pathway that is an equivalent to temperature increase. Stored potential energy, increased convection through density change, or something else.
> ...




Physics in the real world is always messy. But it is always helpful to understand basic principles built on idealized conditions. All of us are prone to pick out examples that support our position while giving less weight to others that lead to conflict. It's human nature to tend to remember and acknowledge only the pieces of evidence that fit our worldview, and forget or dismiss evidence that doesn't. That's why it is so difficult to argue with SSDD, Old Rocks or crick. Contradictory evidence is simply invisible to them.


----------



## Wuwei (May 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> Physics in the real world is always messy. But it is always helpful to understand basic principles built on idealized conditions. All of us are prone to pick out examples that support our position while giving less weight to others that lead to conflict. It's human nature to tend to remember and acknowledge only the pieces of evidence that fit our worldview, and forget or dismiss evidence that doesn't. That's why it is so difficult to argue with SSDD, Old Rocks or crick. Contradictory evidence is simply invisible to them.


Many areas are polarized: religion, immigration, taxing, and of course politics. I see the polarization only getting stronger.


----------



## IanC (May 27, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Physics in the real world is always messy. But it is always helpful to understand basic principles built on idealized conditions. All of us are prone to pick out examples that support our position while giving less weight to others that lead to conflict. It's human nature to tend to remember and acknowledge only the pieces of evidence that fit our worldview, and forget or dismiss evidence that doesn't. That's why it is so difficult to argue with SSDD, Old Rocks or crick. Contradictory evidence is simply invisible to them.
> ...




I blame the internet culture on my own diminishing attention span and I fear what it has done to those who are less self aware.

The movie Idiocracy is rapidly becoming reality.

I am fascinated and mesmerized by American presidential politics. Can it be true that Trump and Clinton are the choices? How did it happen?

There seems to be a lack of adult supervision in our present world due to deference to popularity rather than wisdom. I'm having a hard time seeing the road back to reality. PC, religious and antireligion extremism seems to have replaced commonsense values. We used to laugh and scorn the USSR but somehow we have become them.


----------



## Wuwei (May 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> I blame the internet culture on my own diminishing attention span and I fear what it has done to those who are less self aware.
> 
> The movie Idiocracy is rapidly becoming reality.
> 
> ...


I saw the movie Idiocracy  . It is happening today. 

I think you hit it with the internet. One insidious factor is that the browsers are gleaning a profile of you. If it sees you go to conservative (or liberal) sites often, it will give those sites at the top of the page when you are browsing. That will just reinforce your stance and you won't see the other side. The internet is unintentionally manipulating your mind and polarizing everyone.

I stopped reading politics. Now my mind is mellower.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> You forgot the next sentence where it said that energy would not move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object.



No, I didn't forget the next sentence.  It is just an explication of the first, and the "energy" mentioned in the context was "heat".  Secondly, you still don't understand what "spontaneously" means in this context.  A photon is caused to be emitted by, say, a CO2 molecule going to a lower energy level.  It doesn't move "spontaneously", as does heat along the temperature gradient.



SSDD said:


> No need...you wouldn't question your faith if God himself told you that the greenhouse hypothesis was bullshit.



Ah, so we have another case of SSDD throwing in unsupported "stuff" he picked up somewhere in the denialist blabbosphere, and from a source of which even he is too ashamed to acknowledge.  That's disappointing, and the claim isn't worth a shrug, and dismissed.

The greenhouse effect is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence for it is being observed and measured, your shrieking to the contrary notwithstanding.  All the earth's major, human-generated greenhouse gases show up with their signature wavelengths, both in the earth's lowered irradiance and in the back radiation.  Your proving to be quite resourceful at throwing in distracting sideshows does not prove a thing, other than your willingness to undergo a daily routine of self-humiliation that is quite startling to behold.


----------



## jc456 (May 29, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I blame the internet culture on my own diminishing attention span and I fear what it has done to those who are less self aware.
> ...


How do you figure you can make a difference if you ignore politics?

Ignoring politics is today's issue. It's why we're where we are today.


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




no urinals in the girl's washrooms. how do you pee in front of someone if you are in a stall?


----------



## Olde Europe (May 30, 2016)

IanC said:


> no urinals in the girl's washrooms. how do you pee in front of someone if you are in a stall?



You know what's funny about that?  Mostly (according to anecdotal evidence) the overlap of the two groups believing transgender people / climate scientists do the darnedest of things.  It really ain't fair to rain facts on their parades of putrid fantasies.


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > no urinals in the girl's washrooms. how do you pee in front of someone if you are in a stall?
> ...




Im having a hard time following your comparison.

transgender people have a potential to do something obnoxious but are very seldom seen doing it.

climate scientists have the potential to make mistakes and exaggerate wildly in the name of the 'Noble Cause' and are seen to be doing just that on a daily basis.

so what is your point, exactly?


----------



## Olde Europe (May 30, 2016)

IanC said:


> Im having a hard time following your comparison.
> 
> transgender people have a potential to do something obnoxious but are very seldom seen doing it.
> 
> ...



There is no comparison, just making fun of the weird and scurrilous things happening at the time, like things not seen but ardently believed, such as self-identified female transgender people "peeing in front of", or preying on, "girls", or climate scientists engaged in an earth-spanning conspiracy.

And no, climate scientists do not exaggerate wildly, and are not being seen erring on a daily basis - the denialist blabbosphere, however, is where you can find exactly that.


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Im having a hard time following your comparison.
> ...




I suppose we will just have to disagree. Is WUWT part of the denialist blabbosphere? the first story at that site right now is The sea levels are now reducing in the “hotspots of acceleration” of Washington and New York .

it shows how a 2012 paper using outdated data to 2009 showed high SLR for NYC,NY and Washington, DC. and it also used a bizarre method of looking only at the rising portion of cycles to make the SLR appear even more pronounced.

by simply adding another six years of data the whole thing falls apart. cherrypicking dates and methodologies to produce a desired result is both a mistake and an exaggeration.

I read both sides, perhaps you only read one side. without being exposed to the criticisms that all papers receive I dont think you can come to an informed position on the importance and reliability of any report.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 30, 2016)

IanC said:


> I suppose we will just have to disagree. Is WUWT part of the denialist blabbosphere? the first story at that site right now is The sea levels are now reducing in the “hotspots of acceleration” of Washington and New York .
> 
> it shows how a 2012 paper using outdated data to 2009 showed high SLR for NYC,NY and Washington, DC. and it also used a bizarre method of looking only at the rising portion of cycles to make the SLR appear even more pronounced.
> 
> ...



For crying out loud!

Of course, WUWT is a central part of the denialist blabbosphere.  That article was particularly funny, criticizing a scientific paper for choosing 40-, 50-, and 60-years periods to determine trends in sea level rise (cherry-picking!), and then using a six-years timeframe, and the noise in the system, to "determine" a "trend" in order to counter that paper.  No cherry-picking start and end dates here.

Honestly, IanC, did the guest blogger's nick - *Giordano Bruno* - give you no hint that this silly blog post was just another denialist blabbosphere joke?


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2016)

> _Asbury H. Sallenger Jr, Kara S. Doran & Peter A. Howd, Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic coast of North America, Nature Climate Change 2, 884–888 (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1597_
> 
> This was one of the many examples of bad science misinterpreting the sea level oscillations by cherry picking the time window.
> 
> ...



has the extra six years of data regressed to the mean and broken the claims of 'highest evah', or not?

do you blame any academic for using a nickname when writing criticism against orthidoxy? Bruno is actually pretty clever. obviously he does not want to get burned at the stake.


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2016)

from WUWT on the 28th is a piece on NOAA tide gauge data update. it shows no acceleration.

with the satellites proclaiming that the oceans are rising faster than the coasts it is interesting to inspect Hawaii. is it ocean or coast? whatever it is, it is showing less than 2mm/yr SLR


----------



## jc456 (May 30, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Exactly, so why do they need to use the women's?


----------



## Olde Europe (May 30, 2016)

IanC said:


> has the extra six years of data regressed to the mean and broken the claims of 'highest evah', or not?
> 
> do you blame any academic for using a nickname when writing criticism against orthidoxy? Bruno is actually pretty clever. obviously he does not want to get burned at the stake.



Oh, the high drama, "burned at the stake", no less, and pretty crisp, presumably.

And no, six years of anything with cherry-picked start and end dates don't (dis-) prove a thing, particularly not a long-term trend.  Of course, you could have read the paper I linked, realized the complex analyses, the methodology clearly described, the theoretical background outlined, the provenance of the data given, and the possible causes discussed (changing ocean currents, mostly), and such, and all that missing from an insultingly stupid WUWT blog post.  What that oh-so-very smart "Bruno" did was so enormously original, the denialist blabbosphere did that for more than a decade, blabbing about the high temperatures in 1998 (el nino!), and detecting flat or even falling temperatures.  That is, they exploit a system in which the noise in the data, because of national variation, is an order of magnitude bigger than the trend, in order to hoodwink the gullible.  Clever, and so originial!

Next...



IanC said:


> with the satellites proclaiming that the oceans are rising faster than the coasts it is interesting to inspect Hawaii



... to counter a detected Sea Level Rise Hot Spot at parts of the U.S.'s Atlantic cost, you come up with a comparison with Hawaii.  Hawaii...






... however, seems a bit removed from the Atlantic coast, or rather in another ocean.  But hey, you could have read the paper I linked, and figured that out all on your own.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 30, 2016)

How can something as small in mass as 400 parts per million warm something that has a total mass billions of time greater than it?  

The earths atmosphere is 5.148x1018 kg in weight and they claim something which has 1/1,000,000,000,000 of that weight is capable of warming it uncontrollably..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> How can something as small in mass as 400 parts per million warm something that has a total mass billions of time greater than it?
> 
> The earths atmosphere is 5.148x1018 kg in weight and they claim something which has 1/1,000,000,000,000 of that weight is capable of warming it uncontrollably..



*How can something as small in mass as 400 parts per million warm something that has a total mass billions of time greater than it?* 

By delaying the escape of heat into space.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *How can something as small in mass as 400 parts per million warm something that has a total mass billions of time greater than it?*
> 
> By delaying the escape of heat into space.




Just wait until he figures out that the earth's crust's mass is even slightly bigger than that.  Oh, and don't tell him that in the end it's just photons; no weight.  Zero.  And that trillions of them still weigh nothing at all.


----------



## jc456 (May 30, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *How can something as small in mass as 400 parts per million warm something that has a total mass billions of time greater than it?*
> ...


S0n we've been waiting on the experiment that shows the magic powers of CO2. Any fkn day


----------



## Olde Europe (May 31, 2016)

jc456 said:


> S0n we've been waiting on the experiment that shows the magic powers of CO2. Any fkn day



"S0n"?  Are you trying to come across as condescending, while babbling about "magic powers of CO2"?  Shouldn't you be looking for an alchemist, or something?

Whatever, JC, if you were interested in alleviating your ignorance, it would be incumbent upon you to do some research, read, and learn.  Apparently, that isn't quite your style, as you'd rather parade your ignorance around thinking, apparently, that would amount to an argument.  Rest assured, it does not.

But then, just watch.  Or watch.  Or watch some more.  Or you could read, and learn about the complexity of the research.  Or you could simply realize that, during the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall discovered the greenhouse effect (without it, the earth would be a frozen ball of ice), and also how far you really are behind the curve.  Here is Tyndall's lecture of 1861, with a detailed description of the experiment he set up along with the measured results.  So, you got just about 150 years catching up to do.  Get going.


----------



## IanC (May 31, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > has the extra six years of data regressed to the mean and broken the claims of 'highest evah', or not?
> ...




????

if adding six more years of data wrecks the claim of highest acceleration evah, then the claim was false due to cherrypicking in the first place.

my comment on Hawaii was about the NOAA release of american tide gauge data. your pretty little map certainly makes my point clear. if coastal areas show 2mm/yr sea level rise, and satellite measurements out at sea show 3mm/yr rise, then what should Hawaii be considered as? how does the Pacific Ocean know to stop rising so fast around a little island chain stuck in the middle? should we believe the measured rise in Hawaii, or the calculated rise based on assumptions by the satellites?


----------



## Olde Europe (May 31, 2016)

IanC said:


> ????
> 
> if adding six more years of data wrecks the claim of highest acceleration evah, then the claim was false due to cherrypicking in the first place.
> 
> my comment on Hawaii was about the NOAA release of american tide gauge data. your pretty little map certainly makes my point clear. if coastal areas show 2mm/yr sea level rise, and satellite measurements out at sea show 3mm/yr rise, then what should Hawaii be considered as? how does the Pacific Ocean know to stop rising so fast around a little island chain stuck in the middle? should we believe the measured rise in Hawaii, or the calculated rise based on assumptions by the satellites?



You could have stopped right after the question marks, and would not have made any less sense.

Six years of additional data wreck nothing.  And you still haven't read the paper I linked; otherwise you'd know that the authors tested their findings using different time frames to exclude the very error of cherry picking.  On the other had, using data from December 2009 to April 2015 certainly looks like cherry-picked beginning and end dates.  In other words, the silly WUWT article does exactly that which it accuses the paper's authors of doing, while the latter carefully avoid exactly that.

As to the last paragraph... As you gave no sources ("WUWT" isn't a source, other than one of bemusement on my, and self-humiliation on your, side) I can only speculate on the reasons for the discrepancy (if, in fact, one exists).  The easiest, Hawaii being of volcanic origin, Hawaiian soil may rise 1mm per year, which would distort the tide gauge data, but not the ocean-level data gathered by satellites.  I wouldn't know, though, but your little quip about "does the Pacific Ocean know to stop rising" is just another instance of your laughing at your own ignorance and incomprehension.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2016)

IanC said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


*Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide*

*Hansen et al. 1981*
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, *213*, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

*Ian, there are those old enough to remember when people like you said exactly that about this article in 1981. It was characterized as wildly alarmist. Now we are seeing all of the predictions happening, and we are not yet 20 years into the 21 century. What fools like you called alarmist then, turned out to be far too conservative. 

The last two years and this year have put an end to the 'pause' that never was. And we are seeing even more affects in the Arctic, land and sea, that will have major affect on the rest of the globe. *


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2016)

IanC said:


> > _Asbury H. Sallenger Jr, Kara S. Doran & Peter A. Howd, Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic coast of North America, Nature Climate Change 2, 884–888 (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1597_
> >
> > This was one of the many examples of bad science misinterpreting the sea level oscillations by cherry picking the time window.
> >
> ...


And you know that he is an academic, how? More than likely he is another fake like Monkten.


----------



## jc456 (May 31, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...


*Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide*

link to experiment showing CO2 as bad.  Any day bubba boy.

I call


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Damn, you have repeatedly been shown the intitial experiment, and all of those that followed. You are just too fucking stupid to understand the meaning of emission and absorption lines in the spectrum.


jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


In other words, you once again display your massive ignorance and stupidity. Olde gave you the link to Tyndall's work, and all you have to do is google Arrhenius, and his work in 1896. You are totally a hundred or more years behind time.


----------



## jc456 (May 31, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...


so you have nothing.  As expected.  Dude you can make claim all you want hourly for all I care about you did this and you did that, but note unequivocally, you have not, nor has anyone here ever presented an experiment that shows the evil of CO2.  

What is the temperature of 20 PPM of CO2 then rocks?  Since it's been done tell us.  GAWD, I'm all fkn in.  Let's see it.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 31, 2016)

*The Media Is Ignoring The Most Important Part Of Stephen Hawking’s Comments On Trump*

A lot of people consider astrophysicist Stephen Hawking to be the smartest man in the world. His research and theories have explained some of the deepest mysteries of time and space.

So it’s understandable why, on Tuesday, people sort of freaked out when Hawking said there was one thing he could not explain: The popularity of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

“I can’t,” Hawking responded, when asked to explain Trump’s rise as part of an exclusive interview with British news station ITV News. “He is a demagogue, who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator.”

But here’s the thing: in that same interview, Hawking also said he didn’t believe Trump was the greatest threat facing America, or even the world.* The greatest threat, he said, is human-caused climate change.*

*“A more immediate danger is runaway climate change,” Hawking said. “A rise in ocean temperature would melt the ice-caps, and cause a release of large amounts of carbon dioxide from the ocean floor. Both effects could make our climate like that of Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees.”*

*The Media Is Ignoring The Most Important Part Of Stephen Hawking’s Comments On Trump*


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


You have been shown repeatedly the evidence, and the men that developed it in their original articles. You are a liar and troll, not worth responding to any further.


----------



## jc456 (May 31, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


then why can't you answer what the temperature of 20 PPM of CO2 is?  wow, dude it was a question in a five line response.  And you missed it.


----------



## Wuwei (May 31, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> You have been shown repeatedly the evidence, and the men that developed it in their original articles. You are a liar and troll, not worth responding to any further.


It's about time you recognized him as a troll and not worth while.


----------



## Olde Europe (May 31, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > You have been shown repeatedly the evidence, and the men that developed it in their original articles. You are a liar and troll, not worth responding to any further.
> ...



There are folks who fit that bill better than JC does, or so I find.  He hasn't had much by way of a science education, otherwise a question such as...

"why can't you answer what the temperature of 20 PPM of CO2 is?"​
... which doesn't make a lick of sense (posted not just once, but twice), would be inexplicable.  So, I'd cut him some slack, even though he seems to compensate for his incomprehension and insecurity by deploying a rather silly kind of bluster.  I find that mostly harmless, and really not worth the acrimony.  You proceed as you please, of course, but...


----------



## Wuwei (May 31, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



You are too kind. It seems to me he likes to toy with people that are trying to help him understand the issues. Yeah, the "temperature of 20PPM" is one of his wackier posts, but I've seen a lot of others where he has no idea of the science concepts he is bandying about.


----------



## Crick (Jun 1, 2016)

It is his shorthand for his far more oft-repeated demand to see "laboratory proof" of what temperature increase a 120 ppm increase (280 to 400) in CO2 will cause.

JC, does your laboratory have a layered atmosphere with a density gradient matching the Earth's and topped with a vacuum black body?  Does it have an ocean?  Does it have continents?  Cirrus clouds? Cumulus clouds?  Nimbus clouds?  Is it mixed in the infinitely complex manner in which the Earth's atmosphere is mixed?  Does it have a Coriolis effect?  Does it have day and night?  Do YOU know how to simulate or model all those various effects in a laboratory setting?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 1, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


hey here, I'll post it again, how warm is 20 PPM of CO2?  And, what does it do to the convection process that makes more thunderstorms and hurricanes?  Let's see those experiments bubba.  You think I don't monitor you all in here.  yep, I do.  I will respond to your nonsense and junk data as often as I can.  See your researchers don't have a clue.  Nor do you.  you just post on a message board as some senior member of Scientific America.  hahahahahaahahahhhhahhhahaahahaha how's your fking day been anyway?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 1, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


yep like magic back radiation.  Which you can't prove.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> It is his shorthand for his far more oft-repeated demand to see "laboratory proof" of what temperature increase a 120 ppm increase (280 to 400) in CO2 will cause.
> 
> JC, does your laboratory have a layered atmosphere with a density gradient matching the Earth's and topped with a vacuum black body?  Does it have an ocean?  Does it have continents?  Cirrus clouds? Cumulus clouds?  Nimbus clouds?  Is it mixed in the infinitely complex manner in which the Earth's atmosphere is mixed?  Does it have a Coriolis effect?  Does it have day and night?  Do YOU know how to simulate or model all those various effects in a laboratory setting?


I expect someone getting trillions of dollars to have one, yep everyday.  Otherwise it is all just junk, cause science tells one to do experiments to validate a hypothesis.  So genius, is that right or wrong?


----------



## Crick (Jun 1, 2016)

First, no one is getting trillions of dollars.

Second, you need to tell us how all that can be done.

So, you're wrong.  Like ALWAYS


----------



## jc456 (Jun 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> First, no one is getting trillions of dollars.
> 
> Second, you need to tell us how all that can be done.
> 
> So, you're wrong.  Like ALWAYS


So you don't know science protocol.


----------



## Crick (Jun 2, 2016)

I'm afraid I do and it is you that do not.  What laboratory experiments support theories of stellar structure and evolution?  What laboratory experiments support the black hole theory?  What laboratory experiments support general or special relativity?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> I'm afraid I do and it is you that do not.  What laboratory experiments support theories of stellar structure and evolution?  What laboratory experiments support the black hole theory?  What laboratory experiments support general or special relativity?


since I've never spent time looking into those, I'll have to pass on that answer.  

but that doesn't mean that there weren't, again, do you know the science protocol and testing hypothesis', I'm just asking cause it is.  And it seems you don't know that, since you don't agree.


----------



## Crick (Jun 2, 2016)

You're just asking because it is... what?

I learned the scientific method when I was about 12 years old.  That was over 50 years ago and I've spent the last 34 of those assisting in the conduct of military/scientific research and development: testing, data collection, results analysis, systems analysis, reporting, etc.  I think I've got a grasp on it.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> You're just asking because it is... what?
> 
> I learned the scientific method when I was about 12 years old.  That was over 50 years ago and I've spent the last 34 of those assisting in the conduct of military/scientific research and development: testing, data collection, results analysis, systems analysis, reporting, etc.  I think I've got a grasp on it.


you should have been out riding a bike at 12 years old and enjoying life, I feel sorry you didn't get that opportunity, you were already immersed into global climate at 12.  wow, dude too bad.

Me, I had erector sets and I was building projects and testing the boundaries of the product.  I was also playing baseball and riding my bike and hanging with friends.  I didn't need a science teacher to show me how the erector set worked.  you, I believe you did.


----------



## Crick (Jun 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> You're just asking because it is... what?
> 
> I learned the scientific method when I was about 12 years old.  That was over 50 years ago and I've spent the last 34 of those assisting in the conduct of military/scientific research and development: testing, data collection, results analysis, systems analysis, reporting, etc.  I think I've got a grasp on it.





jc456 said:


> you should have been out riding a bike at 12 years old and enjoying life, I feel sorry you didn't get that opportunity, you were already immersed into global climate at 12.  wow, dude too bad.



I was riding a bike at 12 years old and I knew next to nothing about global climate.  My interests at that age were hot rods and any game involving a ball.



jc456 said:


> Me, I had erector sets and I was building projects and testing the boundaries of the product.  I was also playing baseball and riding my bike and hanging with friends.  I didn't need a science teacher to show me how the erector set worked.  you, I believe you did.



My science teachers were my father, a graduate metallurgist involved in the manufacture of the mechanical and electrical components of nuclear devices, my mother, a botanist specializing in slime molds, one brother working on his PhD in materials science and my other brother working on his MA in transformational grammar.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2016)

12 years old. My, that is 60 years ago for me. At that time we lived at the headwaters of the John Day River. Went to a two room school house, one room was for storage, 4 miles away. Dad's education, he went to school for 3 years in the Ozarks, and was credited with finishing the 7th grade by virtue of reading the 7th grade McGuffeys reader. My mother had two years of high school, before illness forced her to quit. However, mom had an insatiable curiosity. And Dad could figure out anything mechanical. 

My days then began with milking the cow, and then rustling up any firewood my mother needed. After school was out, my brother, two years younger, and I caught trout, and hiked the mountains. Saw deer, bobcat, mink, martin, and more birds than I can name. We supplied a family of eight with a fish dinner every week. I had a cousin that liked Edger Rice Borroughs, so I was introduced to science fiction. After reading Carter of Mars, the stars and planets became real places, rather than just lights in the sky.

That was the best period of my childhood. Before I graduated from high school, I had attended at least 13 different schools. After I left home, I started taking classes at night, one of which was a course in Geology. It was there that a post grad student introduced the class to the concept of global warming. That was in the mid-60's. Never gave it much thought until the '80's, then I started taking an occasional night class again. Did read the assessment of the NAS in 1975 concerning whether we faced warming or cooling. At that time they stated that most thought that warming would happen. However, that was based on so little at that time that what was needed was a lot more study. 

I have been taking classes for the last three years, and have finished all the necessary Chemistry, Physics, Biology, and Geology I need at the 200 level. I have had 4 quarters of calculus and only need Vector Calculus, and then I am done with the math. I have taken some 300 and 400 Geology classes. Now all this is spread over a period of 45 years. So I have had a front row seat to the developments in the science we have today. 

For me, the computer and net are the most wonderful thing I have seen in my lifetime. The whole of the knowledge of our civilization is at one's fingertips. Not even the beginning of enough time to take full advantage of that. When I retire, one of the things I look forward to is time to truly research some things that I find interesting.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> It wasn't a typo. It is your usual confusion in using "energy" and "thermal energy" as though they were the same thing. That same confusion befuddles you in your idea that photons from a cold object cannot hit a hot object.



The second law deals with energy...tell me is thermal energy energy...if not, what is it?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Of course I am right...you on the other hand remain hopelessly lost...not understanding even a fraction of what you think you understand...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> SSDD I guess no one in here can actually debate the subject cause they have no evidence to support the violation of the second law.



It isn't possible to violate the second law...it is, however, completely possible to misunderstand it...to plaster your beliefs to it and think that those beliefs actually make it possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm and who knows what other idiotic attributes.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



You scared to just read the PDF Ian?  afraid that there might be something there that shakes your faith?  Read the PDF and if you disagree then show the lab work that proves it wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




You don't think pedophiles and perves will use such laws to enter women's bathrooms at will?  You don't think they might just stand on the toilet in the next stall and look over?  You wan't your daughter to look up and see some perv peeping over the stall wall at her?

The outcomes of these laws are always predictable if you have the brains to simply follow them to their logical and inescapable conclusions...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > no urinals in the girl's washrooms. how do you pee in front of someone if you are in a stall?
> ...



You think that transgender people are the only ones who will take advantage of laws that let anyone walk into any rest room?


----------



## Crick (Jun 13, 2016)

Anyone can walk into any restroom now and they have been for the last hundred years. Do you actually think someone planning on committing rape is worried about the penalty for entering the wrong rest room?


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 13, 2016)

SSDD said:


> The second law deals with energy...tell me is thermal energy energy...if not, what is it?


Heat is thermal energy. Not all energy is heat. That is the basis of your confusion.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 13, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Of course I am right...you on the other hand remain hopelessly lost...not understanding even a fraction of what you think you understand...


Well a while ago you were saying that an adiabatic process is what governs the temperature profile of the earth and all planets.

It is good to see that you are now distancing yourself from that ill-conceived "theory".


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> Anyone can walk into any restroom now and they have been for the last hundred years. Do you actually think someone planning on committing rape is worried about the penalty for entering the wrong rest room?


then why do they need a special law? I'm fine with status quo.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> Anyone can walk into any restroom now and they have been for the last hundred years. Do you actually think someone planning on committing rape is worried about the penalty for entering the wrong rest room?



You think rape is the only reason pervs might enter the women's rest room?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The second law deals with energy...tell me is thermal energy energy...if not, what is it?
> ...




So again....is heat a form of energy, or is heat the "evidence" that energy is moving from one place to another?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Of course I am right...you on the other hand remain hopelessly lost...not understanding even a fraction of what you think you understand...
> ...



Sorry...not distancing my self from anything....the fact is that the gravito thermal effect has been proven in a lab...repeatable, observable and all that..while there isn't the first bit of measured evidence in support of the greenhouse hypothesis...never been measured...it is an ad hoc construct that wouldn't even be close to reality without a "fudge" factor.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 13, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Sorry...not distancing my self from anything....the fact is that the gravito thermal effect has been proven in a lab..


Please define what you mean by "gravito thermal effect". It is not a term in used in thermodynamics publications, but I presume you are referring to compression of the atmosphere under gravity. If there were no external energy in the lab experiments, the air would be at the same temperature no matter the height in a column. 

That has nothing do do with the physics of earth's atmosphere.


----------



## Crick (Jun 13, 2016)

You've missed this one.  You'll love this.  SSDD and some of his acolytes believe that the compression of gases generates heat forever. C'mon SID, let's hear it.  S'plain it to us now.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry...not distancing my self from anything....the fact is that the gravito thermal effect has been proven in a lab..
> ...



well, that's where you are wrong....observable, repeatable experiments have been done in the lab which found a temperature gradient  in columns of air....Boltzman and Maxwell were wrong then and they have been proven wrong now....here...have a read....

https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/production-of-electricity-out-of-a-heat-bath.pdf


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> You've missed this one.  You'll love this.  SSDD and some of his acolytes believe that the compression of gases generates heat forever. C'mon SID, let's hear it.  S'plain it to us now.




And oddly enough, it has been proven in the laboratory...actual observable, measurable, REPEATABLE science....demonstrating exactly what I have been saying...now lets see some actual observable, measurable, REPEATABLE science from the climate alarmist community demonstrating that adding a whiff of a trace gas to the atmosphere will cause catastrophic climate change...hell, lets see an experiment that adding 5000ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause temperatures to rise.


----------



## Crick (Jun 13, 2016)

See?  What'd I tell you?  ROTFL.  Show us the lab work SID, show us the lab work.  C'mon man. Make me eat humble pie.  I deserve it.  You can do it.  C'mon...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> See?  What'd I tell you?  ROTFL.  Show us the lab work SID, show us the lab work.  C'mon man. Make me eat humble pie.  I deserve it.  You can do it.  C'mon...



Gravity compresses air, heating it, causing it to rise, making room for more air to be heated by compression?

Is that his idiotic claim?


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 13, 2016)

SSDD said:


> well, that's where you are wrong....observable, repeatable experiments have been done in the lab which found a temperature gradient in columns of air....Boltzman and Maxwell were wrong then and they have been proven wrong now....here...have a read....
> 
> https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/production-of-electricity-out-of-a-heat-bath.pdf



Thank you. I read your link with great interest. The author also believes Kelvin and Planck are also wrong as you probably saw when you read page 16:

_Kelvin-Planck: No device, operating in a cycle, can produce the sole effect of extraction of a quantity of heat from a heat reservoir and the performance of an equal quantity of work.
Perpetual Motion: Perpetuum mobile of the second type are impossible.

My experimental results contradict all of these statements. My experiments have shown:_
…_a device is possible which extracts heat from a heat reservoir and produces work in the form of electricity…….,

...heat can flow from cold to warm… and

...Perpetuum Mobiles of the Second Kind are possible….. _​
I have only said that energy can be exchanged by cold and warm objects as long as the net energy obeys the 2nd Law. He believes that *heat* can flow from cold to warm. Furthermore he believes in perpetual motion.

I guess I'm not surprised that you believe such wacko ideas, but what is surprising is that you suddenly changed your mind about heat flowing only from warm to cold.

Yes, it was a very interesting read.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


> And oddly enough, it has been proven in the laboratory...actual observable, measurable, REPEATABLE science....demonstrating exactly what I have been saying...now lets see some actual observable, measurable, REPEATABLE science from the climate alarmist community demonstrating that adding a whiff of a trace gas to the atmosphere will cause catastrophic climate change...hell, lets see an experiment that adding 5000ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause temperatures to rise.



So you are going to double down on your reference that has "actual observable, measurable, repeatable evidence" that shows proof that heat can flow from *cold to warm*, the opposite of what every grade school kid knows. And from this the author invents a *perpetual motion* machine. Those are not just my words those are his words.

My gosh, you have really gone off the deep end.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> See?  What'd I tell you?  ROTFL.  Show us the lab work SID, show us the lab work.  C'mon man. Make me eat humble pie.  I deserve it.  You can do it.  C'mon...



Already did skid mark...what's the matter, you can't manage to click on a link?  Enjoy your pie.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> I have only said that energy can be exchanged by cold and warm objects as long as the net energy obeys the 2nd Law. He believes that *heat* can flow from cold to warm. Furthermore he believes in perpetual motion.



Energy flow is a one way gross exchange...no observation of two way energy flow has ever been made.



Wuwei said:


> I guess I'm not surprised that you believe such wacko ideas, but what is surprising is that you suddenly changed your mind about heat flowing only from warm to cold.



Guess I am not surprised that even when repeatable lab experiments demonstrate a thing (the gravito thermal effect) you just can't bring yourself to disbelieve your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.  

And nothing changed my mind....I have always said that neither heat nor energy can flow SPONTANEOUSLY from cool to warm....this isn't happening spontaneously.



Wuwei said:


> Yes, it was a very interesting read.



And even though repeatable lab experiments show that gravity does in fact continue to produce heat in static columns of air, you still deny observed, measured, empirical proof....and since gravity does continuously  generate heat in static columns of air, gravity also continuously generates heat in a chaotic column of air...which is then moved throughout the column by air currents...the column of air would never reach equilibrium because gravity itself is generating heat.  Where might one find that fact in the GCM models....or the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models of the greenhouse effect?


----------



## Crick (Jun 14, 2016)

SID, you are so incredibly fucking stupid it just beggars belief.  I begin to suspect that your ignorance violates the laws of physics.

And Wuwei, do not be misled by his semantic tomfoolery. All matter is above absolute zero, all matter radiates in all directions.  Thermal energy is possessed by all matter and it will conduct away through any contact.  That the NET flow is from warm to cold is only the final result.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And oddly enough, it has been proven in the laboratory...actual observable, measurable, REPEATABLE science....demonstrating exactly what I have been saying...now lets see some actual observable, measurable, REPEATABLE science from the climate alarmist community demonstrating that adding a whiff of a trace gas to the atmosphere will cause catastrophic climate change...hell, lets see an experiment that adding 5000ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause temperatures to rise.
> ...


----------



## Crick (Jun 14, 2016)

You've hosed your quotes SID


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> You are so incredibly fucking stupid it just beggars belief.  I begin to suspect that your ignorance violates the laws of physics.



So even in the face of repeatable, observable, measurable laboratory results, you still believe that there is no temperature gradient in columns of air...you believe that the pressure of the atmosphere itself doesn't generate heat at the surface even though experimentation proves otherwise?  You are denying repeatable observable experimental results in favor of your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model? ......  unsurprising.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> You've hosed your quotes SID



You remain a fake engineer and an imbecile.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


> And even though repeatable lab experiments show that gravity does in fact continue to produce heat in static columns of air, you still deny observed, measured, empirical proof....and since gravity does continuously generate heat in static columns of air, gravity also continuously generates heat in a chaotic column of air...which is then moved throughout the column by air currents...the column of air would never reach equilibrium because gravity itself is generating heat. Where might one find that fact in the GCM models....or the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models of the greenhouse effect?


So you believe that your "scientist", Roderich W. Gradff, in the source you cited has an actual observable, measurable, repeatable experiment that shows that heat can flow from a *cold object to a hot* object and shows an invention of* perpetual motion*? It's on page 16.

Well I know you are anti-science, but I didn't realize you were that far gone from current science.


----------



## Crick (Jun 14, 2016)

And you, SID, remain someone who has never had a course in thermodynamics and someone who believes basic physics is dominated by "unknowables".


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> So you believe that your "scientist", Roderich W. Gradff, in the source you cited has an actual observable, measurable, repeatable experiment that shows that heat can flow from a *cold object to a hot* object and shows an invention of* perpetual motion*? It's on page 16.



Again...you leave out the operative word...spontaneously...heat or energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm...we aren't talking about spontaneous energy movement.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> And you remain someone who has never had a course in thermodynamics and someone who believes basic physics is dominated by "unknowables".




Deny deny deny....call me all the names you like...the fact remains that you are having a heaping helping of humble pie....gravity does in fact continuously create heat at the bottom of a column of air and repeatable experimentation proves it.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2016)

you have both stated that you disbelieve the atmospheric thermal effect can exist because the temperature in a column of air would reach equilibrium and that the ideal gas laws describe only a temporary effect....experimentation proves otherwise...upon what basis do you now deny an atmospheric thermal effect?


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Again...you leave out the operative word...spontaneously...heat or energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm...we aren't talking about spontaneous energy movement.



Look at page 16. The guy actually claims that his experiment shows heat can spontaneously move from a cold reservoir to a hot one.  And the guy claims to have invented perpetual motion. And you believe the guy. This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard from you.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


> you have both stated that you disbelieve the atmospheric thermal effect can exist because the temperature in a column of air would reach equilibrium and that the ideal gas laws describe only a temporary effect....experimentation proves otherwise...upon what basis do you now deny an atmospheric thermal effect?


The basis on which I deny his experiment is that he concludes that heat can flow from cold to warm with no external work, and from this he thinks he discovers perpetual motion. How many times to I have to say that before the idiocy penetrates your skull?


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 14, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> So you believe that your "scientist", Roderich W. Gradff, in the source you cited has an actual observable, measurable, repeatable experiment that shows that heat can flow from a *cold object to a hot* object and shows an invention of* perpetual motion*? It's on page 16.



Two points here.  First, having researched the man, I didn't find Graeff quoted anywhere, much less his experiment actually repeated, and his results confirmed.  "Repeatable" isn't proof.  Repeating it, and confirming the findings is.  And yet, nobody saw grounds to try, curiously enough, isn't it?  After all, we're standing before a "scientific" breakthrough exceeding Einstein and Darwin combined.

Second, and assuming that Mr. Graeff is one of a myriad of crackpots who believed they invented a perpetual motion, can you identify where in his paper his experiment / calculations went wrong?  He found a temperature gradient of -0.04K/m for water.  Meaning, simply assuming a surface temperature of 0°C, the oceans should be all at boiling temperature at a depth of 2,500 meters.  I believe, no one ever found that.

So, it appears, gravity doesn't accelerate molecules in fluids and gasses on their path downward in such a way that you can continually extract energy, correct?

Whatever, what we're seeing is Same Shit, Different Day, and yet another distracting side-show with no relevance whatsoever.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 14, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *The Media Is Ignoring The Most Important Part Of Stephen Hawking’s Comments On Trump*
> 
> A lot of people consider astrophysicist Stephen Hawking to be the smartest man in the world. His research and theories have explained some of the deepest mysteries of time and space.
> 
> ...



LOL.  Hawking is so far out of his depth here.

250 degrees????

Does he know we've had times when CO2 is 20 times today's puny 400PPM?

LOL

What a maroon!


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 14, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> LOL.  Hawking is so far out of his depth here.


Well compared to a numb nuts Right winger like you who the fuck is Hawkins other than a Famous Scientist whereas you are an anonymous loser out of your depth among K Garden children LOl
you are a total loser.*..Governments come to Hawkins to ask his opinion ...no one come to you to ask  shit LOL*
Loser..out of your depth..

*Stephen Hawking awarded largest prize in all of science


Its unimaginable an asshole "CrusaderFrank" who owes points on the IQ test talking smack about Hawkins*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > And you remain someone who has never had a course in thermodynamics and someone who believes basic physics is dominated by "unknowables".
> ...


Losah weak Bimbo post...another anonymous genius who knows more than Science 
*Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 14, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



250 degrees = lol

Funniest thing ever written on agw


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 14, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Quoting IPCC lolololol


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 14, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> "CrusaderFrank" who owes points on the IQ test


 First time I heard that one. I think that can be said for a lot of people here whose opinions on science are worth less than the effluvium from a loose rectal sphincter.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Again...you leave out the operative word...spontaneously...heat or energy won't move spontaneously from cool to warm...we aren't talking about spontaneous energy movement.
> ...



The conclusions he draws from his experiments do not alter the result of his experiment...that being that there is a gravity induced temperature gradient in columns of air...you, crick, and others have denied this, and the experiments show that it is true....now tell me what you believe the implications are for the greenhouse effect if there is a gravity induced temperature gradient within the atmosphere that is not accounted for in the models.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > you have both stated that you disbelieve the atmospheric thermal effect can exist because the temperature in a column of air would reach equilibrium and that the ideal gas laws describe only a temporary effect....experimentation proves otherwise...upon what basis do you now deny an atmospheric thermal effect?
> ...




You latch on to his conclusions while ignoring the fact that he has proven that there is a gravity induced temperature gradient within a column of air....you have denied that such could happen but the fact is that it does happen...so again, what are the implications for the greenhouse effect if there is a gravity induced temperature gradient in columns of air that is not included in the greenhouse hypothesis.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> Two points here.  First, having researched the man, I didn't find Graeff quoted anywhere, much less his experiment actually repeated, and his results confirmed.  "Repeatable" isn't proof.  Repeating it, and confirming the findings is.  And yet, nobody saw grounds to try, curiously enough, isn't it?  After all, we're standing before a "scientific" breakthrough exceeding Einstein and Darwin combined.



He has repeated the experiment over and over...and it doesn't surprise me that no climate pseudoscientist would attempt to replicate them...after all, what would that do to the holy greenhouse hypothesis if it became common knowledge that there was a gravity induced temperature gradient in the atmosphere?


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


> You latch on to his conclusions while ignoring the fact that he has proven that there is a gravity induced temperature gradient within a column of air....you have denied that such could happen but the fact is that it does happen...so again, what are the implications for the greenhouse effect if there is a gravity induced temperature gradient in columns of air that is not included in the greenhouse hypothesis.


His conclusions are: Cold objects can spontaneously warm up hot objects, perpetual motion is a given. Also water gets hotter the deeper you go.

I verified that Olde Europe's calculation that, according to your "repeatable, observable, measurable laboratory results", the ocean would indeed be at 100 C at a depth of 2500 meters.

You are getting desperate, clinging to an experiment that is obviously faulty. It says a lot about your mad desire to prove modern physics is wrong.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 14, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> Two points here. First, having researched the man, I didn't find Graeff quoted anywhere, much less his experiment actually repeated, and his results confirmed. "Repeatable" isn't proof. Repeating it, and confirming the findings is. And yet, nobody saw grounds to try, curiously enough, isn't it? After all, we're standing before a "scientific" breakthrough exceeding Einstein and Darwin combined.


In scientific circles repeatable means a totally different group with a similar but different methodology. That is important because you really need to eliminate systemic biases in the apparatus. It doesn't work if the same guy repeats the same experiment with the same apparatus.


Olde Europe said:


> Second, and assuming that Mr. Graeff is one of a myriad of crackpots who believed they invented a perpetual motion, can you identify where in his paper his experiment / calculations went wrong? He found a temperature gradient of -0.04K/m for water. Meaning, simply assuming a surface temperature of 0°C, the oceans should be all at boiling temperature at a depth of 2,500 meters. I believe, no one ever found that.


It is hard to say exactly where he went wrong. He referenced his website for apparatus details. It gave a curt "Not Authorized to View This Page". However I can guess at his problems. I once worked with thermocouples.

He stated he used theromopiles – series connected thermocouples. They are subject to aging (up to 5% per year) because of alloy instabilities due to small chemical and metallurgical changes They have small signals in the microvolt region and must be amplified. Amplifiers have noise and long term instabilities and must be frequently calibrated in the microvolt range. It would be very difficult to periodically recalibrate his thermopiles because the extensively insulated system would have to be disassembled.

It is beyond me why he averaged his experiment over 7 months. That requires lots of stability.


Olde Europe said:


> Whatever, what we're seeing is Same Shit, Different Day, and yet another distracting side-show with no relevance whatsoever.


Distraction is one of his major games.


Olde Europe said:


> So, it appears, gravity doesn't accelerate molecules in fluids and gasses on their path downward in such a way that you can continually extract energy, correct?


That's right. It would violate the conservation of energy. You could make a machine which turns heat into energy, but the source would cool as and you would have to resupply the heat energy. Of course that is the way steam engines and Stirling engines work.

The author also said the process works with solids. Heat in solids is largely in molecular vibrations. He had no explanation for that.
_Long-term experiments with copper, copper powder, aluminum silicon mono crystal and especially lead indicate that a negative temperature gradient develops in isolated rods arranged in a vertical position.
_​He is due for embarrassment someday.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 14, 2016)

Frank,  here is a link for you 'Plants Need CO2' is the website.

Empirical / Tests Myths - CO2 and Climate Change

*"Myth:* Scientists are unanimous that man-made CO2 is the dominant cause of global warming.

*Fact:* Not so. Many, many reputable scientists believe that natural factors overpower the current influence of CO2 on global warming. Several hundred prominent scientists and/or science professors that have no ties to the petroleum industry have stated publicly that CO2 is not a significant cause of global warming. Over 30,000 more, including 9,000 PhDs have stated man-made CO2 is not expected to cause catastrophic warming.







"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Frank,  here is a link for you 'Plants Need CO2' is the website.
> 
> Empirical / Tests Myths - CO2 and Climate Change
> 
> ...



If CO2 cools the planet, why isn't Venus cooler than the Earth?


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 14, 2016)

Maybe because Venus is an inch or two closer to the Sun???

If increasing CO2 in the atmosphere causes "warming," why does the highly correlated satellite and balloon raw data show precisely no warming in the atmosphere during a period when Co2 increased???


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You latch on to his conclusions while ignoring the fact that he has proven that there is a gravity induced temperature gradient within a column of air....you have denied that such could happen but the fact is that it does happen...so again, what are the implications for the greenhouse effect if there is a gravity induced temperature gradient in columns of air that is not included in the greenhouse hypothesis.
> ...



His conclusions do not alter the fact that he has proven that there is a gravitation induced temperature gradient in columns of air...What does that do to the greenhouse hypothesis?

[QUOTE="Wuwei, post: 14506938, member: 54364" ] I verified that Olde Europe's calculation that, according to your "repeatable, observable, measurable laboratory results", the ocean would indeed be at 100 C at a depth of 2500 meters.[/quote]

I guess old europe...and you as well don't grasp that water is not air...

[QUOTE="Wuwei, post: 14506938, member: 54364" ]You are getting desperate, clinging to an experiment that is obviously faulty. It says a lot about your mad desire to prove modern physics is wrong.[/QUOTE]

The conclusions may be faulty...it wouldn't be the first time experimental results were misinterpreted...the fact remains that he did find that there is a gravity induced temperature gradient in columns of air...again..what does that do to the greenhouse hypothesis...or can't you even bear to bring yourself to consider such things?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...





> The conclusions may be faulty...it wouldn't be the first time experimental results were misinterpreted...the fact remains that he did find that there is a gravity induced temperature gradient in columns of air...again..what does that do to the greenhouse hypothesis...or can't you even bear to bring yourself to consider such things?



*His conclusions do not alter the fact that he has proven that there is a gravitation induced temperature gradient in columns of air...
*
Did he use his knowledge to build his perpetual motion machine yet? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Frank,  here is a link for you 'Plants Need CO2' is the website.
> 
> Empirical / Tests Myths - CO2 and Climate Change
> 
> ...



Let me guess, CO2 can't cool Venus because all the CO2 on Venus already escaped into space? Derp!


----------



## jc456 (Jun 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Frank,  here is a link for you 'Plants Need CO2' is the website.
> ...


venus surface is cooler than its atmosphere because of CO2, yes


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



How'd the CO2 cool the surface?
Why isn't Venus cooler than the Earth?


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I verified that Olde Europe's calculation that, according to your "repeatable, observable, measurable laboratory results", the ocean would indeed be at 100 C at a depth of 2500 meters.
> ...



You obviously haven't read the paper you brought up, or didn't understand it.  Don't care which.

So, as every other troll you should expect to be treated with the appropriate level of respect, as amply deserved.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


> His conclusions do not alter the fact that he has proven that there is a gravitation induced temperature gradient in columns of air...What does that do to the greenhouse hypothesis?


His conclusions on the temperature gradient was tied to his observation that energy from a cold reservoir can spontaneously move to a warm reservoir. You have to accept both conclusions or neither. It's your pick.


SSDD said:


> I guess old europe...and you as well don't grasp that water is not air...


I guess you didn't read your article at all. The author measured temperature differences in water too. You didn't read that? Shame on you. Why don't you read the articles you cite?


SSDD said:


> The conclusions may be faulty...it wouldn't be the first time experimental results were misinterpreted...the fact remains that he did find that there is a gravity induced temperature gradient in columns of air...again..what does that do to the greenhouse hypothesis...or can't you even bear to bring yourself to consider such things?


You can't bring yourself to understand that it wasn't that his conclusions were faulty. His whole experiment was faulty, since it showed physically impossible results.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 14, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> You obviously haven't read the paper you brought up, or didn't understand it. Don't care which.
> 
> So, as every other troll you should expect to be treated with the appropriate level of respect, as amply deserved.


Oops, you beat me to it. Maybe we shouldn't tell him that the author and his experiment found that solid rods also disobey the 2nd law of thermodynamics too.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> His conclusions on the temperature gradient was tied to his observation that energy from a cold reservoir can spontaneously move to a warm reservoir. You have to accept both conclusions or neither. It's your pick.



Are you really that dumb?  You believe that because he perhaps drew an incorrect conclusion from the results of his experiments, that it alters the result in any way?  You really think that?  Ever hear of Antoine Lavoisier?...he proposed a theory of acids that held sway well into the 19th century...based on his observations, he hypothesized that oxygen was the acidifying factor in acidic substances....of course his conclusions from what he observed in his experiment were wrong, but that does not alter the fact that what he observed and measured was indeed what he observed and measured....and oddly enough, even though is conclusions and following hypothesis were mistaken, a new element was added to the periodic table...oxygen.

History is rife with examples of scientists misinterpreting what the results of their experiments mean.....this does not in the least change what those results were....in this case, the experiments demonstrate that there is a gravity induced temperature gradient in columns of air...no amount of misinterpretation of what that a might mean alters the fact that the temperature gradient still exists.

I would expect nothing less that complete denial from someone like you even though the gravity induced atmospheric thermal effect does, in fact, accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even predict the temperature here without a fudge factor....


----------



## Crick (Jun 14, 2016)

The greenhouse effect works on every other planet.  Your gravity induced nonsense does not.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Why do I care why Venus isn't cooler,  it's just the planet that disprove's back radiation. Hahahaha


----------



## jc456 (Jun 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> The greenhouse effect works on every other planet.  Your gravity induced nonsense does not.


Except Venus


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Why do I care why Venus isn't cooler
*
You said CO2 cools the Earth. At 400 PPM.

Why doesn't it cool Venus, at ~ 965,000 PPM?

Unless that claim was as moronic as all your others.......

*it's just the planet that disprove's back radiation*

How?


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Are you really that dumb? You believe that because he perhaps drew an incorrect conclusion from the results of his experiments, that it alters the result in any way? You really think that? Ever hear of Antoine Lavoisier?...he proposed a theory of acids that held sway well into the 19th century...based on his observations, he hypothesized that oxygen was the acidifying factor in acidic substances....of course his conclusions from what he observed in his experiment were wrong, but that does not alter the fact that what he observed and measured was indeed what he observed and measured....and oddly enough, even though is conclusions and following hypothesis were mistaken, a new element was added to the periodic table...oxygen.
> 
> History is rife with examples of scientists misinterpreting what the results of their experiments mean.....this does not in the least change what those results were....in this case, the experiments demonstrate that there is a gravity induced temperature gradient in columns of air...no amount of misinterpretation of what that a might mean alters the fact that the temperature gradient still exists.
> 
> I would expect nothing less that complete denial from someone like you even though the gravity induced atmospheric thermal effect does, in fact, accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even predict the temperature here without a fudge factor....


Oh for God's sake. Your insults, bluster and irrelevant examples simply will not alter the fact that it wasn't that his conclusions were wrong. First it was his entire experiment that was wrong. Second, the bad experiment lead to bad conclusions. The bad experiment and bad conclusions are inextricably tied.


----------



## Crick (Jun 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The greenhouse effect works on every other planet.  Your gravity induced nonsense does not.
> ...



Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

Mercury average = 127C

Venus average = 462C


----------



## jc456 (Jun 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You should know, but you're afraid to say it. 

But one needs surface IR to back radiate and what was the percentage of sunlight that hits the surface? Hahahaha


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



It must be CO2, absorbing energy, but never emitting.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


You never did say how CO2 emits


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*You should know, but you're afraid to say it.*

No, I don't know how your "theory" works and I'm not afraid to say it.

*But one needs surface IR to back radiate
*
Is the surface of Venus above 0 K?
*
and what was the percentage of sunlight that hits the surface?*

You tell me. And then tell me how that disproves back radiation. Hahaha.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



*You never did say how CO2 emits*

When an electron drops to a lower orbit, a photon is emitted.

How much heat does CO2 carry away when it escapes Earth's atmosphere?
Is that the only way it, as you claimed, cools the Earth?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You should read up on how much sun hits the surface


----------



## jc456 (Jun 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


No, it also helps keep sunlight out


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



If it proves any of your claims, post it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



CO2 cools the Earth by keeping sunlight out?
What about absorbing the energy and then leaving the atmosphere?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Why don't you


----------



## jc456 (Jun 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Yep all of it. You still haven't stated how CO2 emits


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Why don't I post something that you think proves your claim? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



CO2 cools the Earth by keeping sunlight out?

*Yep all of it.
*
400 PPM keeps all the sunlight out? Sounds like magic!
Also sounds like it would end all life on Earth.

*You still haven't stated how CO2 emits*

I did...above. I'll post it again.

When an electron drops to a lower orbit, a photon is emitted.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You know I've been waiting for yours for some time  so you first


----------



## jc456 (Jun 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


How, collide vibrate what? You sure failin your attempt to prove emit trance


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Waiting for what? Be specific.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



What are you mumbling about?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 15, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


LOL. Here we go again. 




The *Rutherford–Bohr model* of the hydrogen atom(_Z_ = 1) or a hydrogen-like ion (_Z_ > 1), where the negatively charged electron confined to an atomic shellencircles a small, positively charged atomic nucleus and where an electron jump between orbits is accompanied by an emitted or absorbed amount of electromagnetic energy (_hν_).[1] The orbits in which the electron may travel are shown as grey circles; their radius increases as _n_2, where _n_ is the principal quantum number. The3 → 2 transition depicted here produces the first line of the Balmer series, and for hydrogen (_Z_ = 1) it results in a photon of wavelength 656 nm (red light).
Bohr model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## jc456 (Jun 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


you still haven't explained CO2 emitting.  any day now.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


hahahaahahhaahaha yeah post something that proves my claim.  Since you are such a little fk why not, seems you can't prove yours.

still waiting on how much sunlight hits the surface of venus.  Please enlighten us all on your vast knowledge of feedbacks.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 15, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


you love pictures dude.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 15, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Post 672.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 15, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*yeah post something that proves my claim.
*
There is nothing that proves your claim.

*still waiting on how much sunlight hits the surface of venus*

Don't know, don't care.
How does CO2 absorb and never emit? Durr.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why don't you post the reason why you think CO2 emits.  And it isn't just because it absorbs, there are physics involved, what are they?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


there is nothing that proves your claim.  so what do we do?  Hell, the sun doesn't even follow your claim of feedback.  And it's got the frign hottest corona in the known universe. And the surface isn't as warm.  Holy crap, seems to support my claim and not yours.

It seems you throw out magnetic fields, convection, conduction, atmospheric pressures and many other conditions.  yep, for you it's feedback and you can't even validate it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 15, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*why don't you post the reason why you think CO2 emits.
*
It doesn't need a reason. Electrons drop to lower orbits all the time, just because.
If you had actually taken a physics class, and  had above a room temperature IQ, you'd know that.

Now why does it absorb, but never emit, in your world?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well there is a reason, but I don't give up mine until you give up yours.  It's a gas and not just an electron.  So why not explain how it actually works in physics, that term you love to throw around to make it like you don't know anything about it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 15, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Hell, the sun doesn't even follow your claim of feedback.* 

Since I never made any claim of feedback, I have to ask, why are you drinking already?

*And it's got the frign hottest corona in the known universe. And the surface isn't as warm.  Holy crap, seems to support my claim and not yours.
*
Which claim of yours is supported by the hotter corona and the cooler surface, emitting in all directions, constantly?

*It seems you throw out magnetic fields, convection, conduction, atmospheric pressures and many other conditions.*

I didn't throw them out. Not even a little.

I need to hear more about CO2 absorbing energy and escaping our atmosphere.

Tell me more about this magic ability of CO2 that you discovered.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 15, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You tell me how co2 emits. Still waiting. Hey, why is it if it emits and is spread equally in the atmosphere are there different temperatures? Hmmm. Still waiting


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 15, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*why is it if it emits*

If? LOL!

Does any matter ever emit? How?


----------



## Crick (Jun 16, 2016)

Good one.  How about a list of which materials emit and which ones do not?  Then perhaps you could explain how and why?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> The greenhouse effect works on every other planet.  Your gravity induced nonsense does not.




Really?  Lets test that hypothesis...that is what science is all about after all...not that you know jack about actual science having imbibed in pseudoscience for so long.

Applying the ideal gas laws to Venus in the form T = PV/nR where the atmospheric pressure is 92000 mbar, the surface density is 65000 g/m3, and the mean molecular weight is 43.45 we get 739K=92000/(65000/43.45*0.083144621)....the average temperature on Venus is 737 K...the ideal gas laws, WITH NO FUDGE FACTOR put us to with 2degrees K of the actual temperature on venus....

So step on up skid mark and show us what the greenhouse formula says that the temperature on venus should be....and lets see you do it without pseudoscientific fudge factors....I certainly didn't need any....show us what you have.

Prediction.....you won't even make an attempt because you know as well as I (or you do if you are half as smart as you think you are) that the greenhouse hypothesis doesn't work there....not even close.

Come on skid mark...give me a new quote for my sig.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 16, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Are you really that dumb? You believe that because he perhaps drew an incorrect conclusion from the results of his experiments, that it alters the result in any way? You really think that? Ever hear of Antoine Lavoisier?...he proposed a theory of acids that held sway well into the 19th century...based on his observations, he hypothesized that oxygen was the acidifying factor in acidic substances....of course his conclusions from what he observed in his experiment were wrong, but that does not alter the fact that what he observed and measured was indeed what he observed and measured....and oddly enough, even though is conclusions and following hypothesis were mistaken, a new element was added to the periodic table...oxygen.
> ...




Sorry guy...not so.  The temperature gradient he recorded was real...what he drew from that is irrelevant...deny deny deny...


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy...not so. The temperature gradient he recorded was real...what he drew from that is irrelevant...deny deny deny...


It is rather telling that you believe in an experiment where you really don't know how poorly the instrumentation was handled just so you can promote your misunderstanding of thermodynamics. 

There is nothing in the entropy concept of the 2nd law that prevents two objects from radiating energy toward each other, as long as the net radiation energy is from the hotter to the colder object. In radiation exchange, entropy will continually increase and satisfy the 2nd law.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 16, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy...not so. The temperature gradient he recorded was real...what he drew from that is irrelevant...deny deny deny...
> ...








   Set T and Tc to the same number....tell me what P is....you can go on ad nauseum, but you will never get P to be any number other than zero...no matter how much you try and there is nothing there RE net movement...that is nothing but you interpreting...P=0


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Set T and Tc to the same number....tell me what P is....you can go on ad nauseum, but you will never get P to be any number other than zero...no matter how much you try and there is nothing there RE net movement...that is nothing but you interpreting...P=0


Exactly. When the temperatures are the same, both objects are emitting the same amount of energy, and the net radiant energy flow is zero. And entropy is at a maximum.

We went through all that before. Did you forget already?


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 16, 2016)

Here let me remind you of what the top physicists and institutions have to say about P = zero. Why do you think you know more than they do?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Wilhelm Wien Nobel Prize speech.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1911/wien-lecture.html
"[Equilibrium state] ... taken as a whole for many atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."

Optical Design Fundamentals for Infrared Systems Max J. Riedl
“at thermal equilibrium, the power _radiated _by an object must be equal to the power _absorbed_.”

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power _radiated _by an object must be equal to the power _absorbed_.” 

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium
In physics, radiative equilibrium is the condition where a steady state system is in dynamic equilibrium, with equal incoming and outgoing radiative heat flux

Thermal equilibrium | Open Access articles | Open Access journals | Conference Proceedings | Editors | Authors | Reviewers | scientific events
One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.

What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? «  Roy Spencer, PhD
Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm
Imagine a large body that has a deep cavity dug into it. Imagine further that we keep that body at some absolute temperature T and that we have put a small body at a different temperature into the cavity. If the small body has the higher temperature, then it *will radiate heat faster than it absorbs heat* so that there will be a net flow of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. Eventually the system will come to thermal equilibrium; that is, both bodies will have the same temperature and the small body will emit heat as fast as it absorbs heat.

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

This is what Max Planck said in 1914.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random *exchange by radiation *equal amounts of heat with each other..."


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Applying the ideal gas laws to Venus in the form T = PV/nR where the atmospheric pressure is 92000 mbar, the surface density is 65000 g/m3, and the mean molecular weight is 43.45 we get 739K=92000/(65000/43.45*0.083144621)....the average temperature on Venus is 737 K...the ideal gas laws, WITH NO FUDGE FACTOR put us to with 2degrees K of the actual temperature on venus....



Assume a little black hole were to zoom through our solar system, leaving everything else as is, but transferring Venus to an orbit 100 times its current radius.  The SSDD theory of "ideal gas laws rule temperatures" would put the planet's new equilibrium surface temperature at 739°K.

The temperature would still be same, of course, if the orbital radius were halved. The imbecility of that particularly silly sideshow could not be more obvious.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Derp!
Magic photons or magic emitters?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Here let me remind you of what the top physicists and institutions have to say about P = zero. Why do you think you know more than they do?
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Wilhelm Wien Nobel Prize speech.
> ...




*Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "
*
Come on, you know SSDD understands physics better than some old patent clerk.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 16, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Applying the ideal gas laws to Venus in the form T = PV/nR where the atmospheric pressure is 92000 mbar, the surface density is 65000 g/m3, and the mean molecular weight is 43.45 we get 739K=92000/(65000/43.45*0.083144621)....the average temperature on Venus is 737 K...the ideal gas laws, WITH NO FUDGE FACTOR put us to with 2degrees K of the actual temperature on venus....
> ...



So you believe that it is just coincidence that the ideal gas laws so accurately predict the temperature on venus?  oddly enough, they predict the temperature on every other planet with similar accuracy...guess you think that is coincidence as well.

I can't help but notice that none of you believers are demonstrating how close the greenhouse hypothesis gets to predicting the temperature of venus...probably because have no idea what the math looks like, or could even produce a formula...but more likely because you couldn't bear to see the results...

The fact is that the fudge factor by which the greenhouse effect of CO2 is calculated is a mathematical joke...using that fudge factor will show you the same result no matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere...if there were but one CO2 molecule in the air, doubling it to two molecules would yield the same 3.7wm2 to the entire surface of the earth because the fudge factor doesn't take saturation into account....in fact, it deliberately leaves out saturation.

But hey...step on up and show how close the greenhouse effect calculations get to the actual temperature of anywhere in the solar system without a fudge factor....a fudge factor, by the way, which is inexplicable, and can not be rationally accounted for.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 16, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Set T and Tc to the same number....tell me what P is....you can go on ad nauseum, but you will never get P to be any number other than zero...no matter how much you try and there is nothing there RE net movement...that is nothing but you interpreting...P=0
> ...



Sorry guy...the equation describes a gross one way flow of energy...not a two way net flow...but you didn't get it the first time either.....you don't seem to be able to grasp that the calculation is describing a thing that is actually happening...a physical process and not some etherial mathematical model construct....it describes a one way transfer of energy because that is all that has ever been observed or measured....were two way energy flow fact, the equation would reflect that fact and the second law would make mention of net energy flows...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 16, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Here let me remind you of what the top physicists and institutions have to say about P = zero. Why do you think you know more than they do?
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Wilhelm Wien Nobel Prize speech.
> ...



Believe what you must....even though it has never been observed or measured....such is the nature of faith.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Believe what you must....even though it has never been observed or measured....such is the nature of faith.


Believe what I must? All the major figures in science believe that.
The conflation of faith as “unevidenced belief” with faith as “justified confidence” is simply a word trick.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Here let me remind you of what the top physicists and institutions have to say about P = zero. Why do you think you know more than they do?
> ...



*Derpboy: Believe what you must....even though it has never been observed or measured....such is the nature of faith.*


Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

Gee, who had a better grasp of physics.......tough call.


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> how close the greenhouse effect calculations get to the actual temperature of anywhere in the solar system without a fudge factor....a fudge factor, by the way, which is inexplicable, and can not be rationally accounted for.



Provide a link to the "fudge factor", please.  Since you were going on about it for quite some time, you should know.

And yes, BTW, a calculation of a planet's energy content that doesn't in any way refer to the primary source of (surface) energy on planets is such an obvious fraud as to be spotted by a blind man with a stick.  Why you would humiliate yourself in such a way by bringing forth such gobbledygook is anyone's guess.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 16, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > how close the greenhouse effect calculations get to the actual temperature of anywhere in the solar system without a fudge factor....a fudge factor, by the way, which is inexplicable, and can not be rationally accounted for.
> ...


damn, I always thought the sun was the energy source?  mmmmmmmmmmm WTF.  How does the earth supply it's own energy?

Oh and the sun was external and not local.  wow.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Does it?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 17, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > how close the greenhouse effect calculations get to the actual temperature of anywhere in the solar system without a fudge factor....a fudge factor, by the way, which is inexplicable, and can not be rationally accounted for.
> ...



Interesting...very interesting indeed...but not surprising in the least.  You are a believer....in your mind you have no doubt that AGW is real....and also have no doubt that the greenhouse hypothesis is 100% correct....based on what?  Clearly, since you have no inkling what the fudge factor is, or how it was derived, or that there isn't the first bit of actual observed evidence to support it, your position is one of pure faith....not to worry though, all your buds hold their positions based on faith....just like all those christians, and muslims, and all other religions...there is consensus among their priests that what they believe is true as well but don't have the first bit of observed, empirical evidence.

You just believe on.

The fudge factor is this: Heat increase = 5.35 ln C/C0. Temperature increase = 0.75 times heat increase.  Hansen made it up....he doesn't have the first bit of lab work to support it and yet, among believers such as yourself, it is unquestionable...it erases complexity within the climate system...when complexities change, the fudge factor remains the same...

C over Co represents the increase in CO2....the question was what would happen if CO2 doubled...hansen decided the fudge factor would be 5.35 times the natural log of 2, which is 3.7 watts per square meter....and rather than call it a fudge factor, he named it forcing...sounds better...right?  More marketable...sounds like someone actually did some research and could prove that with the doubling of CO2 the energy change would  be 5.35 times the natural log of 2, which is 3.7 watts per square meter.

Any idea where saturation might be in that fudge factor?   Saturation is very important but not found within the greenhouse effect calculations?  The fudge factor also removes all influences from natural variations....imagine...a hypothesis RE: the climate whose only support is a mathematical model that doesn't recognize natural variation...

In short, the fudge factor is a fill in for a mechanism that could not be found or even  synthesized....it was an ad hoc construct put in place of a mechanism that doesn't exist..

 Believe on Garth.....


----------



## SSDD (Jun 17, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > how close the greenhouse effect calculations get to the actual temperature of anywhere in the solar system without a fudge factor....a fudge factor, by the way, which is inexplicable, and can not be rationally accounted for.
> ...



If it only produced an accurate temperature  on one planet the way the greenhouse calculations do, I would agree that it was coincidence...in fact I would argue that it was coincidence...but when it works for all of them the idea of coincidence sort of flies out the window.


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 17, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Believe on Garth.....



Ah, okay, no link.  Therefore the "fudge factor" is dismissed.  Thanks, anyway.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 17, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Believe on Garth.....
> ...



Must suck not being bright enough to type the words greenhouse effect fudge factor in a search engine...how did you manage to get here?  Or do you just fear anything that calls your faith into question?

Here...never let it be said that I wasn't willing to help out the intellectually challenged...

Fudge Factor.
Green house gas modelling – some thoughts. | Scottish Sceptic
Errors and frauds of global warming science - Climate Dispatch

Sorry that I couldn't provide a warmer wacko site that discusses the fudge factor, but for obvious reasons, they don't like to mention it...can't say that I blame them....I mean when the most basic fundamental component of your whole belief system is so terribly flawed...well..you know.

And before you come back with the best argument that skeptical science could cobble together...do be prepared to apply the greenhouse effect equations to the other planets to demonstrate how accurate it actually is....and do it without a fudge factor.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 17, 2016)

*"Rare, Dangerous" Heat Headed To Parts Of The Western U.S*
Source: *Associated Press*

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- It's a dry heat, Phoenix residents like to say about Arizona's hot weather. That bravado may vanish as the thermometer flirts with 120 degrees this weekend. 

Phoenix won't be alone in the oven. A strengthening ridge of high pressure lifting out of Mexico is on course to also scorch other parts of Arizona and southeast California, bringing potentially record-shattering temperatures. 

Though accustomed to triple digits, the upcoming heat spell is a rarity in Phoenix, a desert metropolis of 1.5 million people, raising concerns of heat stroke. 

Temperatures are predicted to hit 118 degrees in Phoenix on Sunday and peak at 119 degrees Monday. Such heat is "rare, dangerous and deadly," according to a National Weather Service warning. 

"This is extreme even for our standards," said Matthew Hirsch, a weather service meteorologist in Phoenix.

Read more: News from The Associated Press


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 17, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Believe on Garth.....
> ...


If you want accurate Hurricane forecasting forget NOAA..its these Right wing stooges who know how to forecast LOL...
*Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming*


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 17, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Fudge Factor.
> Green house gas modelling – some thoughts. | Scottish Sceptic
> Errors and frauds of global warming science - Climate Dispatch



Ah, that's (1) a denialingdong failing to understand that C0 is supposed to mean CO2 content at pre-industrial levels, and you gobble up his piffle and regurgitate it for years, and come up with the ridiculous notion that "doubling" from one to two CO2 molecules would amount to a forcing of 3.7 watts per square meter.  Of course, "saturation" is not removed.  Then we have (2) one who grapples with his own private, home-brew climate model, and seems to fail, and (3) one Mr. Novak publishing in the world-renowned Pravda, picked up by the most honorable, sincere, and scientifically proficient "climatedispatch", kid you not.

Really?  You could do no better than to advertise your trolling, yet again?


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 17, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Fudge Factor.
> ...


I read the references too. You have a good insight into the weaknesses of those references.
I would add that ref 1 did not have an understanding on what saturation means when applied to the atmosphere. His statement that,
_"The fudge factor uses a natural log curve, which is a contrivance, as natural log is a mathematical hypothetical resulting from calculus manipulations, and it does not exist in cause-and-effect relationships in nature."_​  He is quite wrong. There are lots of logarithmic functions in physics such as entropy calculations, alpha absorption, transmittance, etc. that use logarithms. It is weird that he makes such a blanket statement when he doesn't understand how saturation works in large volumes.

Yes ref 2 was a stream of conscious rambling.

Ref 3 didn't understand what saturation means in the atmosphere and instead focused on absorption "wings". Presumably those are the drop-offs because of the Q factor of the resonant absorption. He also says
_" It is supposedly these molecules which do the heating for greenhouse gases, because they do not use up all available radiation; and therefore, more of the gases absorbs more radiation."_​He totally misunderstands that everyone knows heating is caused by the sun.  Green house gases only impede that heat from escaping.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *"Rare, Dangerous" Heat Headed To Parts Of The Western U.S*
> Source: *Associated Press*
> 
> LOS ANGELES (AP) -- It's a dry heat, Phoenix residents like to say about Arizona's hot weather. That bravado may vanish as the thermometer flirts with 120 degrees this weekend.
> ...



LOL!!!

Caused by a deadly mutant strain of CO2, right?


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 17, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Ref 3 didn't understand what saturation means



You've actually read that third link?  All of it?  I just got until...

In 1984 and 1988, Hansen et al did similar modeling but added a concept for *heat produced by carbon dioxide*​
... verbiage so utterly misguided and revealing so enormous a deficit of scientific understanding as to disqualify the whole of the thing, and that was that.



Wuwei said:


> He totally misunderstands that everyone knows heating is caused by the sun. Green house gases only impede that heat from escaping.



Exactly.

Thanks for your kind words anyway.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 17, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> You've actually read that third link? All of it? I just got until...
> 
> In 1984 and 1988, Hansen et al did similar modeling but added a concept for *heat produced by carbon dioxide*
> ... verbiage so utterly misguided and revealing so enormous a deficit of scientific understanding as to disqualify the whole of the thing, and that was that.


Yes, I'm ashamed to say that I read all of the third link. Even a reference that he cited.

I couldn't help myself. It was like looking at a train wreck in slow motion. I had to take a shower after finishing.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *"Rare, Dangerous" Heat Headed To Parts Of The Western U.S*
> Source: *Associated Press*
> 
> LOS ANGELES (AP) -- It's a dry heat, Phoenix residents like to say about Arizona's hot weather. That bravado may vanish as the thermometer flirts with 120 degrees this weekend.
> ...


Not only that, but May was the hottest month ever recorded:
May was hottest globally, wettest in U.S.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *"Rare, Dangerous" Heat Headed To Parts Of The Western U.S*
> Source: *Associated Press*
> 
> LOS ANGELES (AP) -- It's a dry heat, Phoenix residents like to say about Arizona's hot weather. That bravado may vanish as the thermometer flirts with 120 degrees this weekend.
> ...


what, do they have more CO2 than the rest of us?


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 17, 2016)

"Not only that, but May was the hottest month ever recorded:"

Sounds like you need some milk to wash down all that FUDGE in your mouth...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 17, 2016)

*2016 Is Blowing Away Global Heat Records*
Source: *Climate Central*

Published: Jun 17th, 2016 






May 2016 was the warmest May on record, 1.56°F (0.87°C) above the 20th century average. It was the first month since November 2013 to have an anomaly less than 1°C above the 20th century average, a sign of El Nino's demise. 

For the year-to-date, temperatures are 1.9°F (1.08°C) above the 20th century average, according to NOAA, putting it 0.43°F (0.24°C) above where 2015 was at this point. A Climate Central analysis that averages NOAA and NASA temperature data and compares them to a 1881-1910 baseline (closer to pre-industrial temperatures) found that the year-to-date is 2.5°F (1.39°C) above that average, edging closer to 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures. 

So far, it is likely that 2016 will top 2015 as the warmest year on record, but that depends in part on how the rest of the year plays out. If a La Nina forms by fall, as expected, that could depress global temperatures slightly. 

In a mark of how hot the last few years (which saw three consecutive record hot years) have been, NOAA compared the top 10 warmest months globally as of November 2013 to the current list. As of last month, all but one of the 10 warmest months on recorded occurred in 2016 and 2015. The lone exception was January 2007, which was tied for tenth place. Back in November 2003, it was the warmest month on record.

Read more: 2016 Is Blowing Away Global Heat Records


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 17, 2016)

Lol what a fucking joke. Obama had made a mockery of NASA forcing them to tow the agw line and provide the faked data to match


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 17, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Lol what a fucking joke. Obama had made a mockery of NASA forcing them to tow the agw line and provide the faked data to match


Link goofball LOL


----------



## emilynghiem (Jun 17, 2016)

SSDD said:


> OK boys and girls....we are all in agreement that the climate is changing....nothing new there as it is always changing.  The debate here isn't about whether it is changing, but why.  One side says that it is natural variability...the other side says that man is mostly to blame.
> 
> The point of contention seems to be the A in AGW.  Anthropogenic...caused by man.
> 
> ...



Dear SSDD
What I'm hearing from both left and right
is acknowledgement that
1. most global warming is coming from natural sources beyond the control of man
2. the human activities causing most of the effect can't be halted, for example at any moment the activities used to till soil to grow food, collectively worldwide,
are necessary and produce more of the effects than the issues being targeted politically

What one group of progressive older school liberals came up with:
80% was from natural forces and causes including volcanic activity etc
20% at most was from human activity, and of that 20%
even if ALL the regulations proposed were followed and billions were spent
to make the changes, this would only reduce the 20% by 2%

so it is questioned if that is even worth fighting over

What I argue is to focus on not poisoning the air, water or earth with any hazardous materials, but work on cleaner energy regardless how this impacts climate; do it for the environmental restorations and sustainability


----------



## Crick (Jun 17, 2016)

I'm sorry Ms Emily, but your points are all incorrect.



emilynghiem said:


> Dear SSDD
> What I'm hearing from both left and right
> is acknowledgement that
> 1. most global warming is coming from natural sources beyond the control of man



No you are not.  That opinion is voiced only by a very small portion of deniers, themselves a very small minority and with a very strong tendency towards political conservatism.  The conclusion of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and over 97% of the world's climate scientists is that MOST of the warming is caused by human activities: emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases and deforestation.



emilynghiem said:


> 2. the human activities causing most of the effect can't be halted, for example at any moment the activities used to till soil to grow food, collectively worldwide,
> are necessary and produce more of the effects than the issues being targeted politically



The human activities causing most of the effect are burning fossil fuel to generate electicity and to power our motor vehicles. Those can be replaced by alternate energy technologies such as wind turbines, solar thermal, solar photovoltaic (PV), hydroelectric, nuclear, tidal, ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) and, someday, fusion.  As you know, electric and hybrid cars are replacing gasoline powered vehicles at a pretty good clip..



emilynghiem said:


> What one group of progressive older school liberals came up with:
> 80% was from natural forces and causes including volcanic activity etc
> 20% at most was from human activity, and of that 20%
> even if ALL the regulations proposed were followed and billions were spent
> to make the changes, this would only reduce the 20% by 2%



You most certainly did NOT hear that from "progressive older school liberals" like any I've ever met.  That is a very outdated denier meme that is demonstrably, factually incorrect.



emilynghiem said:


> so it is questioned if that is even worth fighting over



It is not questioned - it IS worth fighting for.



emilynghiem said:


> What I argue is to focus on not poisoning the air, water or earth with any hazardous materials, but work on cleaner energy regardless how this impacts climate; do it for the environmental restorations and sustainability



You also need to work towards burning less fossil fuels no matter how "cleanly" it might be done.

And you need some education on the real state of affairs both in climate science and in the arguments taking place.


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 17, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Well lets put some context to your post SSDD..  And a few facts..
> ...


That's not anywhere near "long term". Also, NASA has been caught blatantly lying.

Most of all, we simply do not know how much energy the sun is going to give us 50 years from now. 

Global warming nutjobs are a bunch of illogical fools.


----------



## Crick (Jun 17, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



That's not exactly a defense of Billy Bob's original premise.


----------



## Crick (Jun 17, 2016)

Let's try that with more recent data.  I know you will say this data is simply manufactured by lying government agencies who want to get rich and gain power.  You will say that, but I've become convinced that beside the really stupid and paranoid individuals out there. almost all of you KNOW that temperatures are rising and that no one is manipulating the data to present false results.  So let's look at something recent.






If you want to cherry pick with that peak and drop in the 1940s - like your source did - you can probably come up with something.  But I think just a simple eyeball observation will inform you that the slope of that trend is increasing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 17, 2016)

Crick said:


> I'm sorry Ms Emily, but your points are all incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*
As you know, electric and hybrid cars are replacing gasoline powered vehicles at a pretty good clip..
*
Really? You have any numbers to back up this claim?


----------



## emilynghiem (Jun 17, 2016)

Crick said:


> I'm sorry Ms Emily, but your points are all incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dear Crick YES and the work it takes to till soil and produce food DOES use up fossil fuels for machinery.

I don't disagree with what you are saying.

The group I refer to is also saying the focus should be on cleaner energy. But not just for climate issues but sustainability and health in general.

One retired professor told me after all the research he looked at, it would take everyone agreeing to limit activities to when the sun comes up and turn everything off and go to sleep at night when the sun goes down. Or the energy consumption is NOT sustainable.

So I told this to a friend who is researching piping water to desert areas to desalinate and use dams to generate hydroelectric power that is clean. But better technology is needed so this doesn't burn more energy than it generates. And he agreed that energy needed to be saved by running during the day to capture solar power. Then cutting or shutting down things at night.

The common agreement is the consumption also has to be reduced.
If we want our conveniences we need to invest in the most cost effective energy efficient means.

We don't need to argue about climate change to come to the same conclusions about clean energy, saving resources, and protecting the environment.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 17, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


So here we have another numbskull claiming that the vast majority of scientists around the world have no idea what they are talking about, or that they are all frauds. A bit easier to believe that Muhammed is a willfully ignorant fool.


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 17, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Appeal to authority fallacy. Bandwagon fallacy.

It seems like nearly every one of your arguments is riddled with logical fallacies.


----------



## Crick (Jun 18, 2016)

Argument from authority is completely valid if the authority is actually expert on the topic and if their opinion(s) are correctly represented.  Since there have been NO examples of expert climate scientists complaining about these adjustments and NO examples of expert climate scientists disagreeing with the many recent declarations of record high global temperatures and multiple examples of known experts MAKING precisely these observations (of record high temperatures), the appeal to authority in this case is perfectly valid.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> Argument from authority is completely valid if the authority is actually expert on the topic and if their opinion(s) are correctly represented.  Since there have been NO examples of expert climate scientists complaining about these adjustments and NO examples of expert climate scientists disagreeing with the many recent declarations of record high global temperatures and multiple examples of known experts MAKING precisely these observations (of record high temperatures), the appeal to authority in this case is perfectly valid.


There are no experts, that's what you fail to recognize. Otherwise, it would actually have consensus don't you think?


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 18, 2016)

Any "skeptic" who says "the Earth is warming but"

should be ignored.  The Earth is not warming.  The surface of growing urban areas is warming.  That's it.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 18, 2016)

Alaska Continues to Bake, on Track For Hottest Year

Alaska just can’t seem to shake the fever it has been running. This spring was easily the hottest the state has ever recorded and it contributed to a year-to-date temperature that is more than 10°F (5.5°C) above average, according to data released Wednesday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.



 How much spring temperatures differed from average during the spring in Alaska.
*Click image to enlarge.* Credit: NOAA


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 18, 2016)

Why not cut, paste, and parrot the above in every topic??


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 18, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Why not cut, paste, and parrot the above in every topic??


why not post something to do with AGW instead of lame attempts at snark ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Alaska Continues to Bake, on Track For Hottest Year
> 
> Alaska just can’t seem to shake the fever it has been running. This spring was easily the hottest the state has ever recorded and it contributed to a year-to-date temperature that is more than 10°F (5.5°C) above average, according to data released Wednesday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
> 
> ...


See all them thar huge cities in Alaska? Yessirrrreeeeeeeeee Bob, that's what is making Alaska so hot.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 20, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Alaska Continues to Bake, on Track For Hottest Year
> 
> Alaska just can’t seem to shake the fever it has been running. This spring was easily the hottest the state has ever recorded and it contributed to a year-to-date temperature that is more than 10°F (5.5°C) above average, according to data released Wednesday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
> 
> ...








 unalakleet, ak

So, this is the city in the middle of what you're claiming is 10 degrees F increase.  prove it.  I have them  normal today.

Unalakleet Weather - AccuWeather Forecast for AK 99684

*
Temp (°F)
Now* 52°
*Yesterday* 52°
*RealFeel®* 50°
*RealFeel® Shade* 49°
*Wind Chill* 52°
*Dew Point* 48°


----------



## Crick (Jun 20, 2016)

Tyrone's graphic is for Spring.  Your is for a single day.  Try again.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> Tyrone's graphic is for Spring.  Your is for a single day.  Try again.


I put up a link genius. open it up it's for thirty days. I knew you never opened up links.  Why do you ask for them if you don't feel obligated to read them?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> Tyrone's graphic is for Spring.  Your is for a single day.  Try again.



So you're saying the climate of Alaska is now radically different and we can expect spring to be the same 10 degrees warmer next year


----------



## Crick (Jun 20, 2016)

The odds are good.  What do you think's going to happen?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 20, 2016)

The odds are far better that you'll just parrot the top weather story and pass it off as global warming


----------



## Crick (Jun 20, 2016)

Parrot?  Borrowing terms from your new hero?  Notice that no one bothers talking to him?

You didn't answer my question.  What do you think is going to happen in Alaska next year?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> Parrot?  Borrowing terms from your new hero?  Notice that no one bothers talking to him?
> 
> You didn't answer my question.  What do you think is going to happen in Alaska next year?



Barring a major planetary shift, the climate in Alaska will be the same next year as it is today.

How confident are you that the climate is now permanently altered so that it will be 10F warmer next year as well due to global climate warming change?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> Tyrone's graphic is for Spring.  Your is for a single day.  Try again.



The chart is for a month, Einstein


----------



## Crick (Jun 21, 2016)

I guess I was fooled by "Temperature now" and "Temperature yesterday".


----------



## jc456 (Jun 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> I guess I was fooled by "Temperature now" and "Temperature yesterday".


and didn't bother with the link, which is your forte.


----------



## Crick (Jun 21, 2016)

The data from your link tells me a few things.

First, that Unalakeet is directly on the Norton Sound - on a cold ocean.  Oceans moderate temperatures. 

Second, the one month graphic tells me that over the 35 days it covers, temperatures average 4.06F degrees above the historical average.  This is illustrated at Unalakleet June Weather 2016 - AccuWeather Forecast for AK 99684 - look to the bottom to see the graphic.  Only 9 of the 35 days had a high below average, 26 were at or above average.  Only 7 of the 35 lows were below average, 28 were above.


----------

