# Does AR5 contain observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW



## SSDD (Aug 14, 2016)

One of our posters put up a poll after he was challenged to bring forward some observed, measured, quantified data from AR5 that supported the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....this poster, in a blatant fit of dishonesty posted a poll simply asking if there were empirical data in AR5 as if a simple temperature reading weren't empirical data...he completely dodged the central issue.....that being whether there were any actual empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...

For those of you who have the cojones to vote that there is some observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...I did provide you with an answer that lets you off the hook for providing it...because you have already proven to anyone who has bothered to look that you can't find it....and you can't bring it here


----------



## Crick (Aug 14, 2016)

There is a great deal of observational data in AR5 that supports the idea that the observed warming is caused by human activities.

Poster SSDD makes the mistake of assuming he knows the motivations of others and that it has any bearing on our discussions.  I was not prompted to put up that poll from anyone challenging me to produce empirical data from "The Physical Science Basis".  I was prompted to put up that poll from two posters claiming that there simply was no empirical data there.  I never made any attempt in that poll to connect the presence or absence of empirical data with the validity of the AGW theory.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> There is a great deal of observational data in AR5 that supports the idea that the observed warming is caused by human activities.
> 
> Poster SSDD makes the mistake of assuming he knows the motivations of others and that it has any bearing on our discussions.  I was not prompted to put up that poll from anyone challenging me to produce empirical data from "The Physical Science Basis".  I was prompted to put up that poll from two posters claiming that there simply was no empirical data there.  I never made any attempt in that poll to connect the presence or absence of empirical data with the validity of the AGW theory.



Really?  Give us an example that does not also fall within the boundaries of natural variability...

And your motivations were obvious crick...I challenged you to provide some observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...you then put up a poll that says that I claimed that there was no empirical data in AR5....a bald faced lie.

There are 3 pencils, 6 pens, a sharpie, two highlighters and a stick eraser in the pen holder on my desk...that is observed, measured, quantified data but it does not support the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...

And of course you were crick prompted by challenges....explicit challenges to produce some observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW......more lies on your part...damned but you are a liar.  But hell, that is par for the course for you and everyone already knows it without me pointing it out...I offered up a more honest poll and even gave you an out which allowed you to claim that you believe the requested data is there but you can't find it...which is clearly the case since you obviously can't produce any of it here.


----------



## Crick (Aug 15, 2016)

You waste everyone's time here SID


----------



## SSDD (Aug 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> You waste everyone's time here SID



It is a waste of time to ask for actual data that supports your claim?...Interesting.  I would say that you are wasting more time making claims that you can not support with actual data...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2016)

So crick... clearly you voted that AR5 was chock full of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the anthropogenic component of AGW....find any to bring here yet?


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2016)

The correlation of human-produced CO2 to temperature rise supports human causation.

The inability to find ANY other viable causation for the observed warming supports human causation.

Calculations of the amount of warming that would be produced by the amount of CO2 humans have put into the atmosphere - compared to the warming observed - supports human causation.

You lost this entire argument when you wisely chose to use "support" vice the usual denier demand for "proof".  And that's because the science DOES support AGW.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> The correlation of human-produced CO2 to temperature rise supports human causation.



So you finally admit that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW and the entire house of cards is built upon correlation....which does not equal causation....



Crick said:


> The inability to find ANY other viable causation for the observed warming supports human causation.



The fact that there is nothing happening in the present climate that even approaches the boundaries of natural variability pretty much smashes that bit of stupid thinking....and are you suggesting that at present we know all of the variables that affect the climate and the degree to which they have such an effect?  Are you really claiming that?



Crick said:


> Calculations of the amount of warming that would be produced by the amount of CO2 humans have put into the atmosphere - compared to the warming observed - supports human causation.



Except for the little fact that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming...all models all the time.  The atmosphere is a physical, observable, measurable quantifiable entity...doesn't it strike you as odd that the only data supporting the claim that man is altering the climate with his so called greenhouse emissions are unobserved, unmeasured output from failing computer models?



Crick said:


> You lost this entire argument when you wisely chose to use "support" vice the usual denier demand for "proof".  And that's because the science DOES support AGW.



Thought I would make it easy for you ...and you can't even provide observed, measured, quantified evidence that even supports the claim....the best you can do is admit that it is all correlation and that there is no observed, measured quantified empirical data supporting the claim even though the atmosphere is observable, measurable, testable, and quantifiable..then to claim you have won is just hilarious....


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> The correlation of human-produced CO2 to temperature rise supports human causation.
> 
> The inability to find ANY other viable causation for the observed warming supports human causation.
> 
> ...


correlation does not equal causation, annnnt, try again.


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> The correlation of human-produced CO2 to temperature rise supports human causation.





SSDD said:


> So you finally admit that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW and the entire house of cards is built upon correlation....which does not equal causation....



This statement makes no difference from what I have always said on this topic.  You did not ask that we demonstrate whatever it is you actually mean by "equals causation".  You asked for information that "supports the A in AGW".  Correlation does not PROVE causation, but all causation will show it.  You cannot have causation without correlation and no one on either side of this argument has ever successfully shown us ANYTHING except CO2 that has the necessary correlation - as well as the basic physical mechanisms - to be responsible for the observed warming.



Crick said:


> The inability to find ANY other viable causation for the observed warming supports human causation.





SSDD said:


> The fact that there is nothing happening in the present climate that even approaches the boundaries of natural variability pretty much smashes that bit of stupid thinking....and are you suggesting that at present we know all of the variables that affect the climate and the degree to which they have such an effect?  Are you really claiming that?



Since you begin that paragraph with a claim to know the boundaries of natural variability, you're attempting to have your cake and eat it too.  My position is that until we find something else that might be causing it, we have to assume - for this and many other logical reasons - that CO2 is the cause of the observed warming. To do otherwise is to reject all of natural science.  You seem here to be shifting back from "supports the A in AGW" to an unreasonable demand for "proof"; moving the goalposts.



Crick said:


> Calculations of the amount of warming that would be produced by the amount of CO2 humans have put into the atmosphere - compared to the warming observed - supports human causation.





SSDD said:


> Except for the little fact that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming...all models all the time.



This is not a model:




Nor this:





So, what part of the long-established mechanism by which the greenhouse effect warms the planet are you rejecting?



SSDD said:


> The atmosphere is a physical, observable, measurable quantifiable entity...doesn't it strike you as odd that the only data supporting the claim that man is altering the climate with his so called greenhouse emissions are unobserved, unmeasured output from failing computer models?



No.  Because they are not.  Mountains of empirical data support AGW.  My short list was certainly not meant to be complete.  For example, have you a non greenhouse-effect cause for the cooling of the lower stratosphere, cause, the only explanation mainstream science has ever come up with was the greenhouse effect.  And cooling of the lower stratosphere is nearly universal worldwide.



Crick said:


> You lost this entire argument when you wisely chose to use "support" vice the usual denier demand for "proof".  And that's because the science DOES support AGW.





SSDD said:


> Thought I would make it easy for you



You fucked up and asked for what you should have asked for.



SSDD said:


> ...and you can't even provide observed, measured, quantified evidence that even supports the claim.



I can and have, but I cannot stop you from lying about it.



SSDD said:


> ...the best you can do is admit that it is all correlation



Still lying.



SSDD said:


> and that there is no observed, measured quantified empirical data supporting the claim



Still lying.



SSDD said:


> even though the atmosphere is observable, measurable, testable, and quantifiable..then to claim you have won is just hilarious....



I'm glad you're entertained, because science has won, quite some time back. The only thing you've accomplished here is to demonstrate that you don't know how it works, and that you're perfectly willing to lie your ass off.


----------



## IanC (Aug 18, 2016)

The IPCC references empirical data on CO2 concentration. And how mankind has disturbed the natural balance .

There is ample empirical data to support CO2 hindering the loss of certain IR bands directly to space.

I personally believe that the warming influence of CO2 is exaggerated but that does not mean it doesn't exist.

Comparison to past CO2/temperature relationships is highly uncertain because we have altered it unnaturally.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2016)

IanC said:


> The IPCC references empirical data on CO2 concentration. And how mankind has disturbed the natural balance .
> 
> There is ample empirical data to support CO2 hindering the loss of certain IR bands directly to space.



Really?  Lets see it.



IanC said:


> I personally believe that the warming influence of CO2 is exaggerated but that does not mean it doesn't exist.



It is zero or less.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> [
> This is not a model:



Of course not...but like I said...there isn't the first shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the claim that absorption and emission equals warming...the claim arises from an ad hoc construct...not any observed, measured data...  Your whole claim is based on an unsubstantiated assumption....


----------



## Crick (Aug 18, 2016)

SSDD said:


> but like I said...there isn't the first shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the claim that absorption and emission equals warming...the claim arises from an ad hoc construct...not any observed, measured data...  Your whole claim is based on an unsubstantiated assumption....



Please explain what measurement you wish to be made.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 19, 2016)

some that support the claim that man's CO2 emissions are altering the global climate would be nice.  There is no evidence that absorption and emission equal warming so that spectroscopy you keep posting as evidence isn't....


----------



## Crick (Aug 19, 2016)

Of course there is evidence - the laws of basic physics.  Do you have some other suggestions as to what the CO2 might be doing with the energy it absorbs and what the rest of the atmosphere and the Earth's surface might be doing with the energy it emits?

The measurements that show nearly worldwide cooling of the lower stratosphere forcefully supports that warming is taking place as a result of the greenhouse effect.  The only greenhouse gas whose proportions have changed is CO2 and that increase is demonstrably the result of fossil fuel combustion - an activity particularly human the last time I checked.


----------



## Crick (Aug 19, 2016)

And when I asked you what measurement you wished to be made, replying "some that support the claim that man's CO2 emissions are altering the global climate" is pure weasel.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> Of course there is evidence - the laws of basic physics.  Do you have some other suggestions as to what the CO2 might be doing with the energy it absorbs and what the rest of the atmosphere and the Earth's surface might be doing with the energy it emits?



The laws of physics suggest that the presence of greenhouse gasses would have a cooling effect....it is ignorance to suggest that the presence of radiative gasses would inhibit the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself....if our atmosphere were devoid of greenhouse gasses, the temperature would be higher as there would only be convection and conduction to move heat to the upper atmosphere.



Crick said:


> The measurements that show nearly worldwide cooling of the lower stratosphere forcefully supports that warming is taking place as a result of the greenhouse effect.  The only greenhouse gas whose proportions have changed is CO2 and that increase is demonstrably the result of fossil fuel combustion - an activity particularly human the last time I checked.



No they don't...but I don't doubt that you believe that..  Convenient that you ignore that the stratospheric temperatures have flat lined since 1998 corresponding with the flatlining of surface temperatures....while CO2 has been increasing all along.  You would find a better correlation in the stratosphere with ozone than you would CO2.


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> The laws of physics suggest that the presence of greenhouse gasses would have a cooling effect....it is ignorance to suggest that the presence of radiative gasses would inhibit the atmosphere's ability to radiatively cool itself....if our atmosphere were devoid of greenhouse gasses, the temperature would be higher as there would only be convection and conduction to move heat to the upper atmosphere.



Wow.  There's one that needs to be saved for posterity.

1) Where do radiative gases acquire the energy that they radiate?  Magic?  They absorb it, of course. From radiation and from collisions with other gas molecules.

2) And what is the difference between a photon's worth of energy that travels directly to space and one that is absorbed and radiated over and over again on its way there?  Time.  

3) And what happens to the equilibrium temperature of ANY system if you decrease the RATE at which it cools itself?  It rises.

4) You state that the only way a planet without greenhouse gases can cool itself is through convection and conduction. Would you care to explain how transfer of heat to a vacuum takes place?



Crick said:


> The measurements that show nearly worldwide cooling of the lower stratosphere forcefully supports that warming is taking place as a result of the greenhouse effect.  The only greenhouse gas whose proportions have changed is CO2 and that increase is demonstrably the result of fossil fuel combustion - an activity particularly human the last time I checked.





SSDD said:


> No they don't...but I don't doubt that you believe that..



They don't what?  Show cooling of the lower stratosphere or support greenhouse warming?  In either case, I invite you to find us some data that supports whatever ignorant shite you're pushing.



SSDD said:


> Convenient that you ignore that the stratospheric temperatures have flat lined since 1998 corresponding with the flatlining of surface temperatures....while CO2 has been increasing all along.  You would find a better correlation in the stratosphere with ozone than you would CO2.



You're trying to detour away from the argument you're losing here.  You claimed that no empirical data supported AGW. I've named several. Time for you to retract.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> 3) And what happens to the equilibrium temperature of ANY system if you decrease the RATE at which it cools itself?  It rises.



And there we are...right back to the absence of a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that CO2 is decreasing the rate at which the atmosphere cools itself...


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2016)

I see you've wandered off in LaLa Land.

Temperatures rising
Human-sourced CO2 rising
Cooling in the lower stratosphere
Increasing radiative imbalance at the ToA

These are all empirical evidence of anthropogenic global warming.

Time for SSDD to make a retraction


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> I see you've wandered off in LaLa Land.



La la land is where you reside crick...I try not to go there.



Crick said:


> Temperatures rising



For the past 14,000 years....so what?



Crick said:


> Human-sourced CO2 rising



So what...you have still not provided any observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming.'



Crick said:


> Cooling in the lower stratosphere



Closer correlation with increased O3...but we remain unsure as to exactly why the stratosphere is cooling.



Crick said:


> Increasing radiative imbalance at the ToA



Sorry bout outgoing LW at the TOA is increasing and has been for some time.



Crick said:


> These are all empirical evidence of anthropogenic global warming.



Some are evidence of warming...none are empirical evidence of anthropogenic warming.



Crick said:


> Time for SSDD to make a retraction



Time for you to admit that you just can't find anything like the data I have asked for.  I can see though why you hesitated for so long before posting that weak waisted limp dick attempt at proving AGW.


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2016)

What it is time for - and I think I can speak for everyone here - is for you to stop telling lies.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> What it is time for - and I think I can speak for everyone here - is for you to stop telling lies.



We have already established that you are the congenital liar here crick....the fact that you can't bring yourself to admit that you can find no observed, measured, quantified data in support of the A in AGW and all the while keep claiming that it exists is just more evidence of the fact....your latest attempt at such evidence was laughable...it shows that you will drag your intellect (if in fact you have one) through any amount of sewage in an attempt to get people to believe as you do.  You exemplify the unfalsifiable nature of climate science...you glom onto anything and claim that it is evidence of AGW even in cases when climate science is clearly guessing as to causes....like the stratospheric cooling.

Here...NASA admits that at this point they are just guessing and relying on questionable models...

NASA GISS: Research Features: Ozone and Climate Change



			
				NASA said:
			
		

> The concept that stratospheric cooling due to ozone loss may lead to a delay in recovery of the ozone layer has fallen on fertile ground. Scientists running different kinds of global models are finding similar results. "That gives us confidence," says Dr. Venkatachalam Ramaswamy, at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamic Laboratory. "We're confident in our assessment, because the models can help us to understand the observed ozone and temperature changes on a global scale."
> 
> Stratospheric cooling may have been taking place over recent decades for a number of reasons. One reason may be that the presence of ozone itself generates heat, and ozone depletion cools the stratosphere. Another contributing factor to the cooling may be that rising amounts of greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) are retaining heat that would normally warm the stratosphere. However, scientists hold varying degrees of conviction about the nature of the link between tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling. "The warming of the troposphere and its potential influence upon the stratospheric circulation is an important consideration," points out Ramaswamy, "though the quantitative linkages are uncertain. It is possible that they may be interdependent only in a tenuous manner."


----------



## Crick (Aug 21, 2016)

What you've just posted is an explanation of the LACK of a requirement for the greenhouse effect to produce a tropospheric hotspot.  That ozone depletion increases solar irradiation at the surface is not a good thing and is one more factor in human-caused warming.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> What you've just posted is an explanation of the LACK of a requirement for the greenhouse effect to produce a tropospheric hotspot.  That ozone depletion increases solar irradiation at the surface is not a good thing and is one more factor in human-caused warming.



I am sure that you believe your tripe crick....do you eat where you $h!t as well?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 21, 2016)

Another thread that shows how correlation does not equal causation. Another thread where assumptions are made but have no basis in facts or no empirically observed evidence exists to support them.

Simply amazing what passes for science coming from alarmists..


----------



## SSDD (Aug 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Another thread that shows how correlation does not equal causation. Another thread where assumptions are made but have no basis in facts or no empirically observed evidence exists to support them.
> 
> Simply amazing what passes for science coming from alarmists..




When you really press him, he posts a graph of absorption spectra of so called greenhouse gasses...and never fails to post a graph of the emission spectra of so called greenhouse gasses...and doesn't even come close to posting any sort of observational evidence that absorption and emission equals warming.  Like you said...simply amazing what passes for science in their minds.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> Of course there is evidence - the laws of basic physics.  Do you have some other suggestions as to what the CO2 might be doing with the energy it absorbs and what the rest of the atmosphere and the Earth's surface might be doing with the energy it emits?
> 
> The measurements that show nearly worldwide cooling of the lower stratosphere forcefully supports that warming is taking place as a result of the greenhouse effect.  The only greenhouse gas whose proportions have changed is CO2 and that increase is demonstrably the result of fossil fuel combustion - an activity particularly human the last time I checked.


*The measurements that show nearly worldwide cooling of the lower stratosphere forcefully supports that warming is taking place as a result of the greenhouse effect.*
no it doesn't.  

Can you say chocolate syrup, or fudged?  

Still waiting crick for your evidence, still zippola


----------



## IanC (Aug 22, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Another thread that shows how correlation does not equal causation. Another thread where assumptions are made but have no basis in facts or no empirically observed evidence exists to support them.
> ...




I am embarrassed to have some of these guys speaking nonsense and claiming they represent the skeptical side.

Absorption and emission don't equal warming? The surface emits lots of CO2 reactive IR, most of it doesn't come out from the other side of the atmosphere. That energy is incorporated into the atmosphere's energy and contributes to temperature. 

This is observed empirical evidence that these clowns keep screeching for but totally ignore when it is presented.

Temperature is a function of energy in, minus energy out. CO2 specific IR would immediately be lost to space without CO2. Does the energy eventually leave? Of course, but not before it affects the temperature. Warming it at the surface bottleneck but then helping to radiate it away at higher altitude.

This is basic physics. I deny the exaggerated feedbacks but the basic Greenhouse Effect is uncontestable.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

IanC said:


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


funny stuff Ian.  Asked and never answered, how much warmer does CO2 make the surrounding area.  It's all we've asked for.  Why are you embarrassed? Are you saying I have no right to ask? BTW,  Even you don't believe fully in the exaggerated feedbacks.  Why not?  Cause it isn't documented that's why.


----------



## IanC (Aug 22, 2016)

You can ask all you want but you are too stupid to understand the answers.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 22, 2016)

IanC said:


> You can ask all you want but you are too stupid to understand the answers.


in other words you have no idea right>  So you can't say what adding 20 PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere will warm its surrounding air.  Simply amazing that we wish to restrict an element not tested.  Nor know its ability to do damage to the planet.  We do know that the more CO2 the better our plants lives. Seems it's the folks who can't produce the problem or the fix that are the stupid ones.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 22, 2016)

IanC said:


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



Tell me again where in our atmosphere this hot spot (bottleneck) resides..


----------



## IanC (Aug 22, 2016)

If all of the CO2 specific IR that is radiated from the surface is absorbed by the first 10 metres of atmosphere then I guess you might as well call it a surface bottleneck. Temps are measured at 2 metres and probably more than half would already have been absorbed.

Once absorbed that energy becomes part of the atmosphere's cohort of energy. Because the average time of re-emission for CO2 is much longer than the time between molecular collisions, the absorbed photon is more likely to be thermalized than emitted.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 23, 2016)

IanC said:


> If all of the CO2 specific IR that is radiated from the surface is absorbed by the first 10 metres of atmosphere then I guess you might as well call it a surface bottleneck. Temps are measured at 2 metres and probably more than half would already have been absorbed.
> 
> Once absorbed that energy becomes part of the atmosphere's cohort of energy. Because the average time of re-emission for CO2 is much longer than the time between molecular collisions, the absorbed photon is more likely to be thermalized than emitted.


 Except the surface isn't warming either, except in the minds of data altering mainstream climate science...is it Ian...even though the atmospheric CO2 concentration continues to rise....and the fact remains that at the TOA...ougoing LW continues to rise.  These predictions were made and touted to be the smoking guns...the fingerprints of AGW...and yet, they haven't come to pass...in real science Ian, when a hypothesis fails a single predictive test, it is tossed in favor of a different hypothesis which is better able to explain and predict....but you still believe Ian....what exactly do you have invested that would prompt you to continue to believe in a hypothesis which has littered the landscape with failed predictions?  How far must it go before you actually admit that you were wrong?...would a long period of cooling convince you?...even if CO2 continues to increase?....what would it take to falsify the hypothesis in your mind Ian?


----------



## IanC (Aug 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > If all of the CO2 specific IR that is radiated from the surface is absorbed by the first 10 metres of atmosphere then I guess you might as well call it a surface bottleneck. Temps are measured at 2 metres and probably more than half would already have been absorbed.
> ...




The warming influence is still there whether the overall surface temperature is warming or cooling. I have never said CO2 was the only contributing factor, or even the most important. Quite the opposite actually. But the CO2 portion of the Greenhouse Effect obviously exists. The amount of influence is what is in question, and very difficult to determine because of all the other factors.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 23, 2016)

AR5 claims the oceans are absorbing "excess heat" whatever the fuck that non-scientific term is, and passes itself off as "Science"


----------



## IanC (Aug 23, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> AR5 claims the oceans are absorbing "excess heat" whatever the fuck that non-scientific term is, and passes itself off as "Science"




Totally agree.

A few years ago a paper came out on ocean heat content. The big story was how OHC was quickly rising yet nothing was publicized that OHC was much higher during ALL of the past 5000 years. No scare stories of how we were slipping back into an Ice Age but got a reprieve.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 24, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Magical CO2 at work again....causing warming even when there is no warming...do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?  There is one effect of warming....and that is increasing temperatures...if it isn't getting warmer.....then it isn't warming...CO2 has no effect on the temperature beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere....


----------



## jillian (Aug 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> One of our posters put up a poll after he was challenged to bring forward some observed, measured, quantified data from AR5 that supported the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....this poster, in a blatant fit of dishonesty posted a poll simply asking if there were empirical data in AR5 as if a simple temperature reading weren't empirical data...he completely dodged the central issue.....that being whether there were any actual empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...
> 
> For those of you who have the cojones to vote that there is some observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...I did provide you with an answer that lets you off the hook for providing it...because you have already proven to anyone who has bothered to look that you can't find it....and you can't bring it here



science exists whether you believe in it or not. the data has repeatedly been provided. science deniers like to rely on non-peer reviewed garbage. 

butwhatchagonnado?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 24, 2016)

jillian said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > One of our posters put up a poll after he was challenged to bring forward some observed, measured, quantified data from AR5 that supported the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....this poster, in a blatant fit of dishonesty posted a poll simply asking if there were empirical data in AR5 as if a simple temperature reading weren't empirical data...he completely dodged the central issue.....that being whether there were any actual empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...
> ...



Nice try, but I doubt that you will ever be able to do the weasel as good as crick...of course science exists...what does not exist is observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...  but if you believe some exists...bring it here...slap me down with it...make me your bitch....

We both know, that it isn't going to happen though...because no such data exists....or maybe you don't know...but will soon find out if you try to bring some here.

butwhatchgonnado?


----------



## jillian (Aug 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



ok bubbalah. we can pretend. 

me? i think i'll go with he actual scientists and not the paid shills of the fossil fuels industry.

thanks.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 24, 2016)

jillian said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Why does the fact that you come back with no data of the sort I stated categorically does not exist not surprise me?....answer...because it does not exist...and yet, you believe...or to use your word...you pretend....how stupid does that make you?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 24, 2016)

jillian said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > One of our posters put up a poll after he was challenged to bring forward some observed, measured, quantified data from AR5 that supported the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....this poster, in a blatant fit of dishonesty posted a poll simply asking if there were empirical data in AR5 as if a simple temperature reading weren't empirical data...he completely dodged the central issue.....that being whether there were any actual empirical data that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...
> ...


not believe you nor your scientists!


----------



## jc456 (Aug 24, 2016)

jillian said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



And you proved his point.

Derp!!!!


----------



## IanC (Aug 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




It's like a bank account. CO2 is making small deposits on a regular basis but the total depends on all the deposits and withdrawals. 

CO2's influence is there whether the surface temperature is warming, cooling or staying the same.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 24, 2016)

here, I found this link that discusses energy on the planet.  

I thought it would be interesting to share:

SpringerPlus

*"Background*
It is an undisputed fact that the atmosphere can appreciably heat a planet’s surface above the temperature of an airless environment receiving the same stellar irradiance. Known as a natural Greenhouse Effect (GE), this extra atmospheric warmth is presently completely attributed to the absorption and re-emission of upwelling long-wave radiation by heat-absorbing gases such as CO2, water vapor, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and others (Schmidt et al. 2010; Lacis et al. 2010). Thus, GE has two scientific measures at the present (Lacis et al. 2013): _a_) as an observed difference in the outgoing global infrared flux (W m−2) between the planet surface and the top of the atmosphere (Ramanathan and Inamdar 2006; Schmidt et al. 2010; Pierrehumbert 2011); and _b_) as an extra warmth or increased temperature at the surface (Hansen et al. 1981; Schmidt et al. 2010; Lacis et al. 2010, 2013). This study explores the latter measure of GE using Earth as an example. The additional warmth provided by GE creates climate conditions that foster life on our Planet by enabling the existence of liquid oceans and providing for a global water cycle (Pierrehumbert 2010). In order to better distinguish between the two measures of GE and to facilitate a proper understanding of our analysis and results, we hereto introduce the term _Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement_ (ATE) to describe the _total_ extra warmth near a planet surface measured as a difference (K) between the planet’s present mean global surface temperature and an estimated planetary reference temperature in the _absence_ of atmosphere. By referring to the whole atmosphere, ATE also allows for investigation of potential contributions beyond those currently attributed to greenhouse gases."


----------



## SSDD (Aug 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> It's like a bank account. CO2 is making small deposits on a regular basis but the total depends on all the deposits and withdrawals..



So you have a bank account where you can make small deposits of zero on a regular basis and actually increase the value of your account?...where can I sign up for such an account?...do I have to believe in magic in order to get such an account?...can I spend this imaginary money in the real world?




IanC said:


> CO2's influence is there whether the surface temperature is warming, cooling or staying the same.



FINALLY...a point upon which we can agree....it doesn't matter whether the earth is warming or cooling...the influence CO2 has on the temperature is zero beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere....

I know what you meant...so don't get your panties in a wad....you meant that even when it is cooling, it is warming...like I said...you believe in magic.


----------



## IanC (Aug 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > It's like a bank account. CO2 is making small deposits on a regular basis but the total depends on all the deposits and withdrawals..
> ...




Hahahaha you slayers are impervious to logic.

The surface produces IR. Some of which is blocked from escaping directly into space by CO2. That energy is captured by the atmosphere, therefore the temperature is warmer than if that energy was simply lost immediately. Temperature is a function of both energy input and energy output. CO2 decreases output therefore temperature must go up.

I agree that the mass of the atmosphere is important, that the fluctuations between stored potential energy and kinetic energy is the basis of weather, and must be incorporated into any theory that claims to explain the climate.

I also think any changes we are making to the amount of CO2 in the air are trivial in the overall picture. What I don't understand is how wackos like you proclaim that CO2 makes no difference at all, with a straight face. Your personal version of physics is absurd and you fail to address any logical inconsistencies that are pointed out to you.

How do you explain the energy that is blocked from escaping directly to space? How do you explain the surface temperature being greater than the solar input without any additional input from energy returning from the atmosphere? You can't .


----------



## SSDD (Aug 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> Hahahaha you slayers are impervious to logic.



Sorry guy...you are describing yourself...the claimed fingerprints of AGW are not happening so you...rather than simply accept that the hypothesis has failed and that it has failed because of a terribly flawed understanding of physics...you keep moving the goal posts...hoping that sooner or later nature will mesh with what you believe.



IanC said:


> How do you explain the energy that is blocked from escaping directly to space? How do you explain the surface temperature being greater than the solar input without any additional input from energy returning from the atmosphere? You can't .



I don't meed to explain why...all I need to know is that if it were happening, there would be a tropospheric hot spot....there is none...not even at ground level...therefore the hypothesis has failed...you need to simply accept that the hypothesis has failed and start looking somewhere else for an explanation...perhaps a hypothesis that can accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere would be a good place to start.


----------



## IanC (Aug 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Hahahaha you slayers are impervious to logic.
> ...




Like I said....you can't explain. You simply hand wave it away.

Energy that would directly escape to space is trapped in the atmosphere until it finds another pathway out. The atmosphere, especially near surface, is warmer than it would be. How anyone can say that is inconsequential is absurd.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Surface is warmer due to pressure, no?


----------



## IanC (Aug 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Sure. How does that change the fact that CO2 absorbs IR?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



It's a billion times more likely that the radiated photon does not interact with CO2 in the first place.


----------



## IanC (Aug 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




?????

Are you saying CO2 doesn't absorb certain wavelengths of IR, which stops that energy from leaving the Earth unimpeded? You aren't making sense to me.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Are you saying CO2 has special magnetic field and sucks up every photon within miles of it?

There was a previous thread that the odds of an emitted photon being absorbed by CO2 are about 1 in a billion.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


my personal version of physics is that science is tested.  It is not just a mathematical equation.  Making my version the only scientific one.  And CO2 does not add any influence in temperatures.  And sir, you can't prove it.  So stop all your posturing with no facts.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


have you not investigated the full properties of CO2?  I've posted links that show why CO2 doesn't always absorb.  I can't believe you.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


and they avoid colliding with O and N molecules when in the atmosphere cause they are that magical.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 25, 2016)

IanC said:


> Like I said....you can't explain. You simply hand wave it away.
> 
> Energy that would directly escape to space is trapped in the atmosphere until it finds another pathway out. The atmosphere, especially near surface, is warmer than it would be. How anyone can say that is inconsequential is absurd.



You realize that the term denier is appropriate in describing you now?...there is no hot spot...it isn't warming...and CO2 is increasing...if CO2 had even the small amount of magic you ascribe to it, there would be warming....there isn't ...the hypothesis has failed and you just don't seem to be able to accept it because of what such acceptance would mean to what you believe, and hold so dear.


----------



## IanC (Aug 27, 2016)

The Greenhouse Effect predates the recent global warming Scare. This effect is necessary to explain the difference between solar input and the actual surface temperature. Roughly 30C difference. 

There are well known physical processes that describe why this mechanism is in place, has to be in place.

The Greenhouse Effect is there, so any additional GHGs will add a warming influence. But there are many other factors involved as well which are not so easily understood or explained or quantified.

One huge factor is clouds. The uncertainty in the effect of timing and type of clouds totally swamps the effect of CO2. But that does not mean that CO2's contribution is not there, it is.

Catastrophic global warming depends not on the simply calculated CO2 influence but on the the highly speculative feedbacks in response. That is why the climate models continue to churn out incorrect numbers. 

The best lies incorporate as much truth as possible. The best liars believe their lies. The climate science community has followed an error cascade to a point where they cannot easily back up from their mistakes. Political groups have run with the catastrophic predictions and made it even more difficult to correct the mistakes. The media one-sidedly reports predictions of Doom while ignoring any evidence of mistakes or exaggerations.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2016)

IanC said:


> The Greenhouse Effect predates the recent global warming Scare. This effect is necessary to explain the difference between solar input and the actual surface temperature. Roughly 30C difference.
> 
> There are well known physical processes that describe why this mechanism is in place, has to be in place.
> 
> ...



Isn't it interesting that the US Standard Atmosphere accurately predicts the temperature from the ground up to the edge of the atmosphere without any greenhouse effect...and no fudge factor?

You have fallen for a hoax Ian...and you, like most people who fall for hoaxes believe that you are to intelligent to fall for a hoax, so you can't bring yourself to believe it...CO2 is irrelevant beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere...The atmospheric temperature gradient is a product of mass/gravity/pressure...and further...the US standard atmosphere still remains the gold standard and has not changed in the slightest even after nearly half a century of so called greenhouse emissions.

It's a pity that you have so much invested in this hoax that to admit that you have fallen for it is to somehow admit to yourself that you aren't nearly as smart as you had thought that you were....


----------



## Crick (Aug 29, 2016)

Where does the energy come from you fool?  You can't maintain a temperature higher than your surroundings for 3.5 billion years without some INPUT.

And, even from your point of view, what is causing the warming of the last 150 years.  More atmosphere?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> Where does the energy come from you fool?  You can't maintain a temperature higher than your surroundings for 3.5 billion years without some INPUT.



That big ball of fire in the sky idiot...and some from the earth's own internal engines


----------



## Crick (Aug 29, 2016)

Have you ever heard of the term "equilibrium"?  Do you have the slightest clue what it means?

The Earth has been warming.  What do you believe is causing it?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2016)

The earth has been warming and most of the ice melted and sea levels rose more than 100 meters...it wasn't due to CO2 and the fraction of a degree that is claimed to have happened in the past century certainly wasn't due to CO2.


----------



## IanC (Aug 29, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The Greenhouse Effect predates the recent global warming Scare. This effect is necessary to explain the difference between solar input and the actual surface temperature. Roughly 30C difference.
> ...




You know, I am one of the few here that have openly supported your position that the atmosphere in our gravity field is the major framework for both temperature and weather. I have asked you on numerous occasions to expand your explanations but you refused.

The model you referenced is for dry air only as you already know but chose to hold back. It is a starting point, not the whole picture.

The surface point in the pathway of energy entering and leaving the terrestrial system is only important because we live there. total energy input always equals total energy output to a very close degree but there are many variations possible at any point along the path, due to local conditions like the Greenhouse Effect or larger energy transport systems like air circulation which is driven by gravity effects.

You are prone to focusing on one aspect and then ignoring everything else. The world, and the physics behind it are not that simple.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 29, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Being that it has never once been tested with temperature readings, I stand by the fact that GHGs don't warm up the planet.  Adding heat to the surface has never ever been proven.  Not one time.  If it had, there'd be a friggin link that you all could post up that shows that adding CO2 will cause more heat.  Any yet......................crickets. So excuse me while I simply say, you all are nuts and you follow no scientific methodology since you can't produce said experiment.  PacMan is eaten.


----------



## Crick (Aug 29, 2016)

SSDD said:


> The earth has been warming and most of the ice melted and sea levels rose more than 100 meters...it wasn't due to CO2 and the fraction of a degree that is claimed to have happened in the past century certainly wasn't due to CO2.



Let's try this again.

What do you believe is causing it?


----------



## Crick (Aug 29, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



What do YOU think has caused the observed warming Frank?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 30, 2016)

IanC said:


> You know, I am one of the few here that have openly supported your position that the atmosphere in our gravity field is the major framework for both temperature and weather. I have asked you on numerous occasions to expand your explanations but you refused.



Why thanks Ian...but it really isn't necessary...I don't need you to tell me that I am right...I don't require support or agreement form anyone.....ever in order to feel OK about my position...and the basis for my position is available to anyone who cares to look...you know where to go if you want an "expanded" explanation.  There is no need for me to argue the point with you...you are a believer in the magic of CO2 and also believe that you are far to intelligent to have fallen for a hoax so you remain fooled...and I suppose you will remain fooled for years after the sham is uncovered and the hypothesis properly disposed of.  You are far to invested to ever make a graceful exit.



IanC said:


> The model you referenced is for dry air only as you already know but chose to hold back. It is a starting point, not the whole picture.



No Ian...The US standard atmosphere incorporates a so called greenhouse gas...water vapor...the heat capacity of water vapor is included and the reason that it hasn't been altered after all these years of so called greenhouse gas emissions...CO2 is irrelevant.

Here is a clip regarding the creation of the US Standard Atmosphere...



> These early atmospheric scientists began this effort to model the atmosphere with the basic physics of gases and air known since the 1800's from the ideal gas law, 1st Law of Thermodynamics, Newton's second law of motion (F=ma=mg), the physical chemistry of molecular weights, partial pressures of each gas, heat capacities of individual gases and air at both constant pressure and constant volume, the gravitational acceleration constant, barometric formulae, Boltzmann's constant, Avogadro's number, mean atmospheric molecular weights, number density of individual species, total number density, atmospheric mass density, mole volume, scale height, geopotential height of gravitational potential energy (PE), mean air-particle speed, mean free-path of air molecules, mean collision frequency, calculated speed of sound, dynamic viscosity, kinematic viscosity, coefficient of thermal conductivity, and on and on...
> 
> And _never once_ used any "radiative forcing" from _any_ IR-active greenhouse gases or _any radiative calculations from any greenhouse gases whatsoever_ to produce an accurate 1-D model that could calculate Earth's entire pressure, mass density, temperature, and *molecular-scale temperature as a function of geopotential altitude* (geopotential height ~ geopotential altitude ~ gravitational potential energy (PE)) profile from the surface to the edge of space.
> 
> ...






IanC said:


> The surface point in the pathway of energy entering and leaving the terrestrial system is only important because we live there. total energy input always equals total energy output to a very close degree but there are many variations possible at any point along the path, due to local conditions like the Greenhouse Effect or larger energy transport systems like air circulation which is driven by gravity effects.
> 
> You are prone to focusing on one aspect and then ignoring everything else. The world, and the physics behind it are not that simple.



And you are far to prone to completely ignoring the fact that the hypothesis has littered the landscape with failed predictions....let me ask again Ian...in real science, how may predictive failures does a hypothesis get before it is scrapped?  How many failures are you willing to let pass before the fact sinks in?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The earth has been warming and most of the ice melted and sea levels rose more than 100 meters...it wasn't due to CO2 and the fraction of a degree that is claimed to have happened in the past century certainly wasn't due to CO2.
> ...



I have already stated what I think over and over...the fact that you don't seem to be able to remember is just one more bit of evidence on the already massive pile that you are a lying piece of shit....

As I said...that great ball of fire in the sky...and the mass of our atmosphere combined with gravity....and the energy produced by the earth's own internal engines control, regulate, and determine our climate...CO2 is meaningless beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 30, 2016)

SSDD said:


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



And the bulk of the "observed" warming that you believe exists is due to data manipulation...nothing more....what we are seeing is merely natural variation and the warming will continue till such time as it stops...business as usual and there isn't the first bit of real evidence suggesting otherwise.


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2016)

So you think this looks like natural variation?






Good fucking god are you stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 30, 2016)

Nope...that looks like blatant fraud...hockey stick?...really?  Interesting though how you never fail to attempt to project your own abject stupidity onto someone else....

You should know by now that there is no proxy data that would allow you to make any sort of 100 or 150 year claim relating to past rates of temperature rise....you are just such a lying sack of shit that you can't help but pretend that you can.


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2016)

Interesting how you label any data that tends to show your errors as worthless without even a hint of evidence to support the charge.

Why don't you show us some data that uses as many proxies as did Shakun and Marcott but presents some different picture?  Why don't you show us that the world hasn't warmed since 1880?  Why don't you show us that the Arctic hasn't melted?  Why don't you show us the Antarctic glacier flow rates haven't quintupled and that the WAIS hasn't irreversibly destabilized?  Why don't you show us that the world's glaciers aren't disappearing? Why don't you show us that the ocean's heat content hasn't increased by septillions of joules in the last two or three decades?

Eh?  Why?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> Interesting how you label any data that tends to show your errors as worthless without even a hint of evidence to support the charge.
> 
> Why don't you show us some data that uses as many proxies as did Shakun and Marcott but presents some different picture?  Why don't you show us that the world hasn't warmed since 1880?  Why don't you show us that the Arctic hasn't melted?  Why don't you show us the Antarctic glacier flow rates haven't quintupled and that the WAIS hasn't irreversibly destabilized?  Why don't you show us that the world's glaciers aren't disappearing? Why don't you show us that the ocean's heat content hasn't increased by septillions of joules in the last two or three decades?
> 
> Eh?  Why?



Crick...you idiot...if only you could read a graph...do you realize that your graph is claiming that the present is 2.5 degrees than the Holocene Optimum?  Roughly the same amount warmer than the Minoan warm period....and a full degree warmer than the Roman warm period?... Do you really believe that is the case?


----------



## Crick (Aug 31, 2016)

I believe that is an accurate representation of the data analyzed and collected by Shakun and Marcotte, by Hadley and showing the IPCC's A1B scenario.  I believe (with good reason) that Shakun's and Marcotte's work are the two best temperature reconstructions of the Holocene assembled to date. Current temperatures are warmer than the Holocene Optimum.  There is NO evidence that the Minoan or Roman warm period were global.

From Wiki
*Roman Warm Period*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The *Roman Warm Period* or the *Roman climatic optimum* has been proposed as a period of unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran from approximately 250 BC to 400 AD.[1] Cooling at the end of this period in south west Florida may have been due to a reduction in solar radiation reaching the Earth, which may have triggered a change in atmospheric circulation patterns.[2]

Theophrastus (371 – c. 287 BC) wrote that date trees could grow in Greece if planted, but could not set fruit there. This is the same situation as today, and suggests that southern Aegean mean summer temperatures in the fourth and fifth centuries BC were within a degree of modern temperatures. This and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek climate during that period was basically the same as it was around 2000 AD. Dendrochronological evidence from wood found at the Parthenon shows variability of climate in the 5th century BC resembling the modern pattern of variation.[3] Tree rings from Italy in the late 3rd century BC indicate a period of mild conditions in the area at the time that Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants.[4]

The phrase "Roman Warm Period" appears in a 1995 doctoral thesis.[5] It was popularized by an article published in _Nature_ in 1999.[6]


----------



## SSDD (Sep 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> I believe that is an accurate representation of the data analyzed and collected by Shakun and Marcotte, by Hadley and showing the IPCC's A1B scenario.  I believe (with good reason) that Shakun's and Marcotte's work are the two best temperature reconstructions of the Holocene assembled to date. Current temperatures are warmer than the Holocene Optimum.  There is NO evidence that the Minoan or Roman warm period were global.
> 
> From Wiki
> *Roman Warm Period*
> ...



If it was confined to Europe and the North Atlantic, why do you suppose there is such a strong signal in the Antarctic ice cores?  Why does the signal show up in temperature reconstructions globally?

Here...from the Vostok ice core:  The signal is clear and clearly much warmer than the present..  Your data manipulators just ignored everything that contradicted their preconceived results.

By the way...your graph claims that the present is warmer than the holocene optimum...do you believe that as well?


----------



## Crick (Sep 1, 2016)

I believe 0 on your unlabeled, unsourced and unidentified graphic is 1950 at the latest.  Try again.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> I believe 0 on your unlabeled, unsourced and unidentified graphic is 1950 at the latest.  Try again.




But you do believe your unlabeled, unsourced, and unidentified graphic?

You are an idiot of the first order...did you know that?  And what's the matter...don't want to acknowledge that your graph claims that the present is warmer than the holocene optimum by several degrees?


----------



## Crick (Sep 1, 2016)

SID, if, as you have stated on numerous occasions, you believe the IPCC lies, is involved in a huge conspiracy and falsifies data, what is the point of this poll?

I do believe the present global temperature is warmer than the global temperature of the Holocene Optimum.






CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=466269

For the 2016 global temperature, add about 0.24 centigrade degrees.  That would take it up about as high as the bottom of the "Recent Proxies" box.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> SID, if, as you have stated on numerous occasions, you believe the IPCC lies, is involved in a huge conspiracy and falsifies data, what is the point of this poll?



Aren't you able to read?  The purpose of the poll is to ask whether AR5 contains observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the A in AGW....clearly it does not. 



Crick said:


> I do believe the present global temperature is warmer than the global temperature of the Holocene Optimum.



Of course you do...what else could you possibly say?  Even though it is patently ridiculous..  You believe what you believe and you have the fake data to prove it.


----------



## Crick (Sep 2, 2016)

What an effective argumentative technique.  Simply reject anything your opponents present.  The result is quite predictable: you are marked a fool who has nothing (in hand or upstairs) with which to argue.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> What an effective argumentative technique.  Simply reject anything your opponents present.  The result is quite predictable: you are marked a fool who has nothing (in hand or upstairs) with which to argue.


you haven't presented anything.  So how can there even be an argument?  He's asked you and asked you and you have deflected and stayed silent.  now you want to post a message that says he has nothing?  Huh?  Present the data he's asked from the observed, measured empirical evidence from the IPCC AR5 report you keep referencing with a mere link. Your silence justifies his argument only and makes your post here comedy.


----------



## Crick (Sep 2, 2016)

If you present a link to an article that you believe contains something we all should see - as the USMB rules urge us to do, can I then accuse you of posting nothing?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> If you present a link to an article that you believe contains something we all should see - as the USMB rules urge us to do, can I then accuse you of posting nothing?


i know right?  I've been waiting for your excerpt for almost five different threads.  Where is it?

BTW, post one of mine where I did that.


----------



## Crick (Sep 2, 2016)

You don't post links to support your arguments?  Sorry to hear that.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> You don't post links to support your arguments?  Sorry to hear that.


I don't? Example please!


----------



## Crick (Sep 4, 2016)

When you said "Post one of mine where I did that", I presumed you were telling me you didn't post links.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> When you said "Post one of mine where I did that", I presumed you were telling me you didn't post links.


When I post a link, I always provide an excerpt to my point. You? Nope


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 4, 2016)

IanC said:


> The Greenhouse Effect predates the recent global warming Scare. This effect is necessary to explain the difference between solar input and the actual surface temperature. Roughly 30C difference.
> 
> There are well known physical processes that describe why this mechanism is in place, has to be in place.
> 
> ...


CRE evidence and observations show the IPCC model failure. A massive failure of -1.62 deg C of forcing per doubling of CO2. The models have failed miserably due to failed understanding of how the water cycle actually works.

Willis Eschenbach eviscerates AR5 Working group 5's work with empirical evidence..

Cloud Feedback


----------



## IanC (Sep 4, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The Greenhouse Effect predates the recent global warming Scare. This effect is necessary to explain the difference between solar input and the actual surface temperature. Roughly 30C difference.
> ...




??????

I cannot see how that article is anything but supportive of my position over the last 5+ years of posting here.

Do you think that Willis denies the mechanism of greenhouse gas warming, or the ridiculous exaggerations of the IPCC feedbacks?


----------



## Crick (Sep 5, 2016)

Careful Ian, he's an atmospheric physicist.  And Willis Eschenbach!  He's a... he's a... I guess he's a blogger with a BA in psychology.  I can see why Billy would go that direction for some real expertise.

An awful lot of folks, more qualified than any of us, have been working on climate sensitivity for quite a few years.  I really think the reality of transient response of the system as a whole (including those multipliers) cannot at this point be found to be below 3.0.


----------



## IanC (Sep 5, 2016)

Crick said:


> Careful Ian, he's an atmospheric physicist.  And Willis Eschenbach!  He's a... he's a... I guess he's a blogger with a BA in psychology.  I can see why Billy would go that direction for some real expertise.
> 
> An awful lot of folks, more qualified than any of us, have been working on climate sensitivity for quite a few years.  I really think the reality of transient response of the system as a whole (including those multipliers) cannot at this point be found to be below 3.0.



Someone, Reagan perhaps, said that liberals are dangerous because so much of what they 'know' simply isn't true. Crick is a prime example of this. Transient response has never been 3 degrees. 

I am sure Crick has seen the graph estimates for both transient and equilibrium responses done over the last 15 years. Both have been going down and appear to be converging to 1.0 and 1.5C.

Before AR5 was released I questioned how they would handle these changes. They simply kept their 1.5-4.5 range and refused to provide a best guess central estimate. The projections for 2100 temperature did not go down, and the SLR predictions actually went up!

Willis is a very creative polymath even if he hasn't got formal training and credentials. His latest article references a paper that showed the large range of estimates for different factors in a number of climate models. Isn't it odd that such highly divergent quantities always seem to add up to similar end values? It's almost as if they peeked at the end result and tuned the models to agree with each other. 

Crick believes in every new paper (that agrees with his opinion) and refuses to acknowledge any criticisms. If the article disagrees with his position he simply reverses his formula and only acknowledges the criticisms while denigrating the ideas and character of the authors.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 5, 2016)

IanC said:


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



Willis simply does the math.. Uses the equations used in the IPCC modeling and compares it to empirical evidence.  Willis understands the theoretical energy loss retardation of GHG's but he also questions their validity by showing how it simply doesn't add up.

What no one has been able to do is show, empirically, what CO2 is capable of in our atmosphere. Their so called "end of times trigger levels of CO2" can easily be shown a deception and outright lie by looking at the paleo records. 

There still is no hard empirical evidence to suggest AGW is dangerous or if we can even influence natural changes or shifts beyond a localized influence. 

The US-CRN shows no warming now for over 17 years and a cooling trend for 13 years. Quite the opposite of the UHI induced, localized changes, which affect only aggregate records such as our satellite records. 

When we look at just areas of the planet not influenced by man directly the AGW premise falls apart, as it shows no warming despite increasing CO2 levels.. No correlation is even observed.


----------



## IanC (Sep 5, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


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



Natural factors can easily overwhelm CO2 influence. That does not mean that CO2 doesn't have an influence. 

You saying CO2 is inconsequential is just as bad as the warmers saying CO2 will cause doom.


----------



## Crick (Sep 5, 2016)

IanC said:


> Transient response has never been 3 degrees.



You are correct, I erred. I should have said "equilibrium climate sensitivity.

*EQUILIBRIUM CLIMATE SENSITIVITY*


















*TRANSIENT CLIMATE SENSITIVITY*









*Equilibrium and transient climate sensitivity *
*(Wikipedia - Climate Sensitivity)*
The *equilibrium* climate sensitivity (ECS) refers to the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) carbon dioxide concentration (ΔTx2). As estimated by the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (_AR5_) "there is _high confidence_ that ECS is _extremely unlikely_less than 1°C and _medium confidence_ that the ECS is _likely_ between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and _very unlikely_ greater than 6°C."[4] This is a change from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (_AR4_), which said it was _likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5 °C with a best estimate of about 3 °C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5 °C. Values substantially higher than 4.5 °C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values_.[5] The IPCC Third Assessment Report (_TAR_) said it was "likely to be in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 °C".[6] Other estimates of climate sensitivity are discussed later on.

A model estimate of equilibrium sensitivity thus requires a very long model integration; fully equilibrating ocean temperatures requires integrations of thousands of model years. A measure requiring shorter integrations is the transient climate response (TCR) which is defined as the average temperature response over a twenty-year period centered at CO2doubling in a transient simulation with CO2 increasing at 1% per year.[7] The transient response is lower than the equilibrium sensitivity, due to the "inertia" of ocean heat uptake.

Over the 50–100 year timescale, the climate response to forcing is likely to follow the TCR; for considerations of climate stabilization, the ECS is more useful.

An estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity may be made from combining the transient climate sensitivity with the known properties of the ocean reservoirs and the surface heat fluxes; this is the *effective* climate sensitivity. This "may vary with forcing history and climate state".[8] [9]

A less commonly used concept, the *Earth system sensitivity* (ESS), can be defined which includes the effects of slower feedbacks, such as the albedo change from melting the large ice sheets that covered much of the northern hemisphere during the last glacial maximum. These extra feedbacks make the ESS larger than the ECS — possibly twice as large — but also mean that it may well not apply to current conditions.[10]


----------



## SSDD (Sep 8, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> There was a previous thread that the odds of an emitted photon being absorbed by CO2 are about 1 in a billion.



Here is a cut and paste from the original post....



> Q: What is the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom (usually N2) out in the open atmosphere?
> 
> A: About 1 nanosecond
> 
> ...


----------



## Crick (Sep 9, 2016)

And is their some directional preference for molecular collisions in a gas?

The pseudo conversation you quote comes from: Gmail - Another dumb question from Dave
and is an exchange between a Dr David Burton and Professor William Happer of Princeton and the Bush Administration Energy Department.  There are a few comments from readers.  None of them are supportive of Dr Happer's views save those from Dave Burton.  The thread includes the following:

From: *T* Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:03 PM
To: David Burton
Dave,
That is interesting, but not sure what the significance is to the discussion.
If greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere due to absorption of photons, and emission is dependent only on temperature, isn't the net effect the same? A warmer atmosphere emits more LW radiation.
[...snip...]

From: *T* Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 1:46 PM
To: David Burton
Dave,
I'm not sure that functionally there is any difference. If the ground emits more LW, the atmosphere warms and responds by emitting more LW. So they aren't independent.  That is why the air warms during a sunny day, because of increased IR emissions from the ground.
[...snip...]


From: *Robert G. Brown* Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:29 PM
To: David Burton
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, David Burton wrote:

Dear Prof. Brown,
I think you might find the discussion below interesting. Prof. Happer's
reply to me is in *[BLUE]* below.

Yeah, I already know most of that stuff, and I'm pretty sure I have his
powerpoint presentation slides as well. I wasn't aware that there were
levels with lifetimes as long as 1 second -- that's actually pretty long
as atomic/molecular lifetimes go -- but those particular levels are then
going to be very sharp and not terribly responsive to non-resonant IR.
Either way, CO_2 doesn't "scatter" LWIR radiation, it absorbs it
(typically within a few meters, the mean free path at atmospheric
concentrations) and the energy is almost instantly transferred to the
surrounding air.

That doesn't mean that they don't radiate. It just means that their
radiation temperature is in equilibrium in the surrounding air, and it
isn't reradiating of a photon it absorbed, it is radiation initiated by
e.g. a collision with an air molecule.

That's why the greenhouse effect is basically logarithmic at this point.
It is long ago and overwhelmingly saturated. The atmosphere is
basically totally opaque in the CO_2 aborptive bands from sea level up
to maybe 8 or 9 km. Somewhere up there, where the air is much colder,
the molecules get far enough apart that LWIR emitted from the colder air
have a good chance of escaping without being reabsorbed. Increasing
CO_2 basically causes a very small variation of the average height and
-- due to the adiabatic lapse rate, which has little that is directly
due to the GHE itself -- therefore the temperature at which the
atmosphere becomes effectively transparent. The rate at which the
energy in this band emerges from the atmosphere is hence much less than
the rate at which it was originally emitted at the surface in this band.
Given constant average SWV (visible) delivery of radiation into the
system from the Sun, the ground temperature has to warm a tiny bit in
order to compensate for the loss of outgoing power in the CO_2 band.

Here is a curve indicating just how much explanatory power CO_2 has as
far as the temperatures over the last 164 years are concerned. Quite a
lot, actually. Happer might be interested in this curve. I think he
passed on the reference to Wilson and Gea-Banacloche in AJP (2012) which
reviews the CO_2-only no-feedback GHE and ends up concluding that the
no-feedback total climate sensitivity on doubling CO_2 ought to be
around 0.9 to 1.1C. I get an excellent fit to all of HadCRUT4 with TCS
around 1.8C,

If I add an entirely heuristic (but obvious) harmonic correction to the
fit to account for the 67 year whatever is causing the systematic
variation, the fit is even better, but the direct fit to the physically
motivated log only has enormous statistical explanatory power with a
residual standard error of 0.1 on 163 degrees of freedom and only two
fit parameters, one of which does nothing but line up the (arbitrary)
scale of the anomaly with that of the fit. There is, in fact, almost
nothing left to explain but noise and the harmonic term. Hard to see
why we need to bother with the world's most expensive, difficult,
chaotic, nonlinear, horribly underresolved models at all, if they cannot
beat a one parameter physically motivated radiative model that ignores
everything but CO_2.

rgb
[...snip...]

Robert G. Brown Robert G. Brown's Home Page
Duke University Dept. of Physics, Box 90305
Durham, N.C. 27708-0305
Phone: 1-919-660-2567 Fax: 919-660-2525

Attachments to this last comment:


----------



## westwall (Sep 9, 2016)

IanC said:


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








Not at all.  CO2 has a vanishingly small effect in our atmosphere.  It is there, but it is so minuscule that we have no instruments capable of separating it out from the background.  That is pretty clear.  Were it a more powerful influence it COULDN'T be so easily overwhelmed by natural factors.


----------



## Crick (Sep 9, 2016)

You have now been presented with multiple direct measurements of downwelling radiation in which the CO2 emissions spectrum is clearly visible. That obviously refutes your statement.


----------



## IanC (Sep 10, 2016)

westwall said:


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




we may be arguing from different standpoints. 

I say that CO2 is an integral part of the Greenhouse Effect. if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere then the band(s) of IR specific to CO2 would directly escape to space at the speed of light. that energy would be gone, it would not be used to raise the energy of the atmosphere, it would no longer be available to be re-radiated by the atmosphere. the difference would be significant, and the surface would be much cooler.

you, on the other hand, seem to be saying that recent increase of CO2 has miniscule effect therefore CO2 can be ignored.


I agree that recent increases of CO2 have minor impact, and that other pathways mask that impact. but the total CO2 influence is large and the recent increase still has an influence even if it cannot be teased out of the background noise.


----------



## IanC (Sep 10, 2016)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Careful Ian, he's an atmospheric physicist.  And Willis Eschenbach!  He's a... he's a... I guess he's a blogger with a BA in psychology.  I can see why Billy would go that direction for some real expertise.
> ...









the climate sensitivity figures have been going down for a decade. the predictions of doom...not so much


----------



## IanC (Sep 10, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




use of terms like '1 in a billion' are a misdirection when you are talking about unimaginably large numbers of molecules and even larger amounts of photons.

from what I have read it appears that all of the CO2 specific IR emitted by the surface is absorbed in the first ~10 metres of atmosphere. because the time between absorption and re-emission is larger than the time between molecular collisions (at surface like temperatures and pressure) that means the energy absorbed is more likely to be redistributed by collision than by re-emission. 

ie. most absorbed  IR energy is turned into kinetic/potential energy stored in the atmosphere. likewise most excited state CO2 emission is caused by molecular collision not the absorption of a photon. the singular case of a CO2 molecule absorbing a photon and holding on to that energy long enough to re-emit it is rare. although I have heard it is only one or two orders of magnitude, not the '1 in a billion' that you quote.

the simplified version most often seen in the media is a CO2 molecule absorbing a photon from below and re-emitting in a random direction, therefore half returns to the surface. while this over simplification generally holds true for near surface altitudes due to the equipartition theorum, it rapidly changes with altitude as both temperature and density decrease, until the air is thin enough that CO2 specific emission can escape without being recaptured. of course the temperature is much colder by then so the amount leaving the Earth TOA is much less than what was put into the atmosphere at the surface. this retained energy is the basis for the greenhouse effect.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> You have now been presented with multiple direct measurements of downwelling radiation in which the CO2 emissions spectrum is clearly visible. That obviously refutes your statement.




No crick...we haven't...because no measurement of "backradition" has ever been made at ambient temperature....all the instruments supposedly measuring back radiation have been cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...therefore all that is being measured is energy movement from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...that isn't back radiation...that is just energy movement as predicted by the second law.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 10, 2016)

IanC said:


> we may be arguing from different standpoints.
> 
> I say that CO2 is an integral part of the Greenhouse Effect. if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere then the band(s) of IR specific to CO2 would directly escape to space at the speed of light. that energy would be gone, it would not be used to raise the energy of the atmosphere, it would no longer be available to be re-radiated by the atmosphere. the difference would be significant, and the surface would be much cooler.



Doesn't matter...radiation is such a small part of the energy movement to the upper atmosphere that it just doesn't matter...CO2 has nothing whatsoever to do with rising the temperature of the atmosphere beyond its contribution to the mass of the atmosphere.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 10, 2016)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


If there wasn't CO2, there would be no plant life, and no human life. So all anyone like me is asking is show the evil CO2 observed temperatures.


----------



## westwall (Sep 10, 2016)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...








I have to disagree with you on this issue Ian.  CO2 is such a vanishingly small percentage of the atmosphere that it's effect is miniscule.  Were it the only GHG that had effect on the global temp my guess is the temp increase would be only a few degrees above absolute zero.  Thankfully we have an atmosphere that is awash in water vapor.  That GHG is THE dominant gas in our atmosphere by many, many orders of magnitude and it is because of that blanket that we don't lose all the heat to space every night.  

The GHG effect is grossly misunderstood IMHO.   It doesn't cause temps to rise to a certain point.,  It merely prevents heat from escaping.  Thus whatever the Sun gives us, that is the theoretical maximum.  It can't go any higher.  And, based on thermodynamics the reality is we never get up to the maximum temp possible, due, once again to that blanket.  It prevents us from getting too hot, and minimizes the amount of heat loss at night.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> You have now been presented with multiple direct measurements of downwelling radiation in which the CO2 emissions spectrum is clearly visible. That obviously refutes your statement.


down welling is not the issue.. Its the speed at which the earth sheds energy.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 10, 2016)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



"it appears that all of the CO2 specific IR emitted by the surface is absorbed in the first ~10 metres of atmosphere. because the time between absorption and re-emission is larger than the time between molecular collisions "

This is why the water cycle and convection are the PRIMARY escape route for surface heat and also why CO2 has little effect at causing heat retention.  This also explains why there is no atmospheric hot spot.

It is simple things like this that lay the AGW meme waste, but the misunderstanding of function and the energy escape routs has allowed erroneous assumptions to be made.


----------



## IanC (Sep 11, 2016)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




your post is chock full of mistakes, misunderstandings and misdirection. the topic is CO2 and its contribution to the greenhouse effect.






I would suggest that everyone examine this diagram until they get the gist of it. the coloured top portion shows the Sun's radiation as a 5500K blackbody Planck curve in red with the actual radiation reaching the surface as a notched curve underneath. Likewise the surface radiation is shown as three blackbody curves of various temps with transmitted radiation of the middle blue Planck curve.

underneath are the major GHGs. look at the absorption spectrum of ozone. it reacts with ultraviolet, and it can be seen in the top diagram that the same ultraviolet has been removed and does not reach the surface.

the topic is CO2 so let's examine that spectrum. CO2 has three vibrational modes modes and sure enough there are three main absorption peaks. two of them can be ignored in our general discussion. Why? because they appear where very little solar input is coming in, and very little terrestrial output is leaving.

that leaves the 15 micron band, where none of the surface radiation is transmitted. this band is important because roughly 8% of the surface power is radiated here. that 8% is not directly lost to space, instead it is absorbed by the atmosphere and becomes part of the total energy. if that 8% did directly leave, and was not adding to the atmosphere's energy total, there would be dramatic cooling.

I hope this explanation also helps to give a mental picture of why it can appear the energy is doubled when in reality it is only stored and not lost to space, and the near equilibrium has long since been reached.


----------



## IanC (Sep 11, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




I actually agree with most of what you have said.

the main difference we have is that CO2 would not cause the hotspot. it is the supposed water vapor/cloud/precipitation positive feedbacks to increased CO2 that would cause it. I have argued against those positive feedbacks from the beginning.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 11, 2016)

IanC said:


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


 Water vapor has shown NO POSITIVE FEEDBACK EFFECT by empirical evidence. The IPCC models are wrong, The CHIMP models are wrong, and the number of assumptions made from them are why every single model fails to date.


----------



## westwall (Sep 11, 2016)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...









I am fully aware of the graph, and I still believe as I stated.  We know that the oceans are the heat reservoirs of the world.  We know that UV radiation penetrates deep into those oceans to warm them up.  We know that long wave IR can't penetrate the skin of the water, thus long wave IR, the very mechanism that CO2 is supposed to control, can't do a thing.  We know these facts Ian.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 11, 2016)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...





IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Ian your the one who misunderstands.

Down-welling radiation stops around 4um.  This is the heat input to the system..

Outgoing radiation starts there and continues to 70um.. This is the heat release from the system.

The intermediary is the key component as to wave length of BB-LWIR  or Grey Body extremely long wave IR and therefore how the earth retains heat. The oceans are opaque thus they are GB and everything above 4um is absorbed or lost in the first 10 microns of the oceans surface. Only down-welling radiation causes the ocean to warm by empirical evidence.  Clouds and rain have a direct effect on the incoming/loss ratio. A simple 1-2% change in cloud cover can cause the oceans to warm or cool, despite what the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are, simply because it radiates at a level which the oceans can not absorb.

The atmosphere is a combination of grey and black body but the majority of energy is lost to water vapor.  That narrow band of 12-15um is primarily absorbed by water vapor at ground level and due to the energy loss it is re-transmitted at the cooler 17-24um by empirical evidence and lab studies. It is confirmed at TOA measurements.

While your graph is generally accepted as a correct representation of spectral pass, there are little things which it does not compensate for. Like how much of the energy is absorbed by other components of our atmosphere and transmitted at their cooler temperatures and thus longer wavelengths.


----------



## IanC (Sep 12, 2016)

westwall said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




more evasion and misdirection away from the topic.

does the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere cause the atmosphere to be warmer than if it wasnt present. I say yes, and give the mechanism and evidence to support the premise. you say no, and then move on to other subjects.


----------



## IanC (Sep 12, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




I see your short-lived moment of semi clarity has once again degenerated into bafflegab ala Cliff Clavin.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 12, 2016)

IanC said:


> more evasion and misdirection away from the topic.
> 
> does the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere cause the atmosphere to be warmer than if it wasnt present. I say yes, and give the mechanism and evidence to support the premise. you say no, and then move on to other subjects.



It does in so far as it contributes to the mass of the atmosphere....balanced, of course, by its ability to provide some small means for the atmosphere to radiatively cool itself.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 12, 2016)

IanC said:


> I see your short-lived moment of semi clarity has once again degenerated into bafflegab ala Cliff Clavin.



Says the guy who places his faith in a failed hypothesis.


----------



## IanC (Sep 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > more evasion and misdirection away from the topic.
> ...





here we are....back at the same fruitless, one-sided discussion. I try to explain my side, using multiple interconnected examples and insights...you simply disagree and make unsupported contradictions that often fly in the face of known physics.

put up an explanation for how the mass makes a difference. I want to see it in your own words.

explain why CO2 absorbing energy at the surface makes no difference but emitting it further up does. again, in your own words.


----------



## IanC (Sep 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I see your short-lived moment of semi clarity has once again degenerated into bafflegab ala Cliff Clavin.
> ...




specifically, which failed hypothesis? preferably with a quote of mine but if you spell it out I will know if I said it or not.


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2016)

IanC said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...









I did not deflect away from your question.  I answered it.  If there were no other component of our atmosphere than CO2 I stated that it would.  On a planet with no water, on a planet with an atmosphere primarily made up of CO2 it would indeed cause warming.  But on this planet the very mechanism that warms this particular planet, fails.  As I stated quite clearly.  We KNOW that the oceans are the heat engines of THIS world.  Long wave IR from CO2 back radiation, or whatever you wish to call it is not capable of penetrating the skin of the water, thus it CAN'T warm the oceans, thus it CAN'T affect global temperature.  On this planet.  

Not in any meaningful way.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 12, 2016)

IanC said:


> here we are....back at the same fruitless, one-sided discussion. I try to explain my side, using multiple interconnected examples and insights...you simply disagree and make unsupported contradictions that often fly in the face of known physics.



Not true Ian...my position flies in the face of your unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical models...but not in the face of ever observation ever made.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 12, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



The greenhouse hypothesis itself has failed Ian...sorry that you haven't noticed.


----------



## IanC (Sep 12, 2016)

green·house ef·fect
noun
the trapping of the sun's warmth in a planet's lower atmosphere due to the greater transparency of the atmosphere to visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation emitted from the planet's surface.


Is this the failed hypothesis you are talking about????

Surely not, because it is obviously true. Perhaps you should be more specific.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 13, 2016)

IanC said:


> green·house ef·fect
> noun
> the trapping of the sun's warmth in a planet's lower atmosphere due to the greater transparency of the atmosphere to visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation emitted from the planet's surface.
> 
> ...




The greenhouse "effect" hypothesis predicts a tropospheric hot spot Ian...it hasn't shown up...so once again for the 6th or 7th time...how many predictive failures do you believe a hypothesis should be allowed before it is scrapped and work begins on a more viable hypothesis....

By the way....the US standard atmosphere is accurate with no mention of any greenhouse effect.


----------



## IanC (Sep 13, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > green·house ef·fect
> ...




Are you talking about climate model predictions? Why would I defend climate models?

The US Standard Atmosphere is reanalysis of known measurements.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 13, 2016)

IanC said:


> Are you talking about climate model predictions? Why would I defend climate models?
> 
> The US Standard Atmosphere is reanalysis of known measurements.



What's the matter Ian....are we getting dangerously close to questioning your faith here?.....you know as well as I that the greenhouse effect hypothesis itself predicts that if CO2 increases....that a tropospheric hot spot...the fingerprint of the greenhouse effect itself will develop...it hasn't happened....which means that the greenhouse hypothesis itself has failed a major predictive test....so again, for the 7th or 8th time...how many predictive failures should a hypothesis be allowed before it is scrapped and the search for a more viable hypothesis begins?....


----------



## jc456 (Sep 13, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Are you talking about climate model predictions? Why would I defend climate models?
> ...


so they are in a conundrum, they believe that IR heats the CO2 molecule and the more CO2 molecules means more heat.  It is exactly what the warmers use to scare the public with AGW.  So, I'm confused at how they believe CO2 does this and yet doesn't follow the AGW hypothesis.  A greenhouse does not use CO2 to keep plants warm, the concept is to recapture the water vapor using the enclosure along with the incoming sun rays.  Also, I cannot find any link that can confirm CO2 getting warm after it absorbs. Just aren't any out there. Tyndall never confirmed temperature with the absorption.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



You aren't likely to find a link suggesting that a CO2 molecule warms as a result of absorption and emission either....I guess it is just another thing you must take on faith if you are going to be a member of the warmer cult...


----------



## IanC (Sep 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > green·house ef·fect
> ...




Show me the link to where a tropospheric hotspot is a requirement for the Greenhouse Effect. IPCC model outputs are not acceptable, and I have argued against them in the past.


----------



## IanC (Sep 15, 2016)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




If it was just a simple case of absorption and emission, then where is the IR radiation that entered the atmosphere at the surface but is missing at the TOA?

My guess is that you will duck the question yet again.


----------



## Crick (Sep 23, 2016)

Eight days since you asked this question Ian.  That looks pretty well ducked to me.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> Eight days since you asked this question Ian.  That looks pretty well ducked to me.




And how many days has it been and still not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data from AR5 in support of the A in AGW?....looks pretty well ducked to me...


----------



## Crick (Oct 20, 2016)

Besides being a blatant and demonstrable lie, what does that have to do with the question Ian ducked?  Nothing.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> Besides being a blatant and demonstrable lie, what does that have to do with the question Ian ducked?  Nothing.


well the question was the OP and you haven't complied.


----------



## Crick (Oct 21, 2016)

I have provided links to empirical evidence supporting AGW repeatedly here.  But when I do, you and SID simply lie about it.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> I have provided links to empirical evidence supporting AGW repeatedly here.  But when I do, you and SID simply lie about it.


nope.


----------



## Crick (Oct 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> I have provided links to empirical evidence supporting AGW repeatedly here.  But when I do, you and SID simply lie about it.





jc456 said:


> nope.



Like that.


----------



## IanC (Oct 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> Besides being a blatant and demonstrable lie, what does that have to do with the question Ian ducked?  Nothing.




did you mean to say someone else? I only duck questions that involve making effort that will just be ignored by the questioner.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> I have provided links to empirical evidence supporting AGW repeatedly here.  But when I do, you and SID simply lie about it.



By your own standard crick...people who provide links and hope that you find something there are just talking out of their asses...if there is some actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence there supporting the A in AGW...then bring it here....lets see it.


----------



## IanC (Oct 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I have provided links to empirical evidence supporting AGW repeatedly here.  But when I do, you and SID simply lie about it.
> ...




AGW theory implies that the world's temperature has increased because mankind's use of fossil fuels has caused an increase in CO2 which in turn has exacerbated the Greenhouse Effect.

The globe has warmed, by measurement etc.

We have burned fossil fuels, by measurement 

The CO2 concentration has risen, by measurement.

The Greenhouse Effect has increased, unmeasurable in whole but individual components can and have been measured, as has the basic mechanism.


I disagree with much of the IPCC'S non basic mechanisms such as the feedbacks and climate sensitivity estimates but it is impossible to dismiss the Greenhouse Effect and mankind's recent disturbance of it.

To say that there is no measured evidence, no understood mechanisms, and no human influence is willful ignorance.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 24, 2016)

IanC said:


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



Got yourself a fine correlation there...but nothing like actual evidence in support of the claim that mankind is altering the global climate...the warming is in VERY large part due to data manipulation...and to date, there is no actual measurement of the greenhouse effect...it remains hypothetical....like all warmers, you assume a great deal but when it comes to evidence in support of your belief...actual evidence...there just isn't any.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 25, 2016)

IanC said:


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


wow, I would never have thought that would've been your post.   wow.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Sounds remarkably like crick, rocks and mammoth doesn't he?


----------



## IanC (Oct 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


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




I am a skeptic. I look at the evidence, and then examine the conclusions inferred from the evidence, and/or make my own conclusions.

I am not a rabid denier like you who places extra weight on inconsistencies, complexities and poorly defined terms to jump to erroneous conclusions .

I am not a doomsaying alarmist like Crick or Old Rocks who parrot the most extreme authority figure that they can find, only to change their position when they find someone else even more extreme.

The Greenhouse Effect is real, but the actual amount of warming is up for debate.

The increase of temperature for the Earth is real, although the exact amount for the last 150 years is up for debate.

Mankind's addition of CO2 is real, how much is up for debate.

The evidence is solid that mankind has created a warming influence via the Greenhouse Effect by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. This would be true even if the world was cooling! Only the amount of influence is up for debate.

This is an example of how a skeptic should think. I can draw a conclusion that Co2 has a warming influence but I cannot say that the present warming is exclusively due to CO2, because there are too many other poorly understood or unknown factors to be sure of either the amount of CO2's influence, or the total cause and amount the Earth's warming.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 26, 2016)

IanC said:


> I am a skeptic. I look at the evidence, and then examine the conclusions inferred from the evidence, and/or make my own conclusions.



No. ian, you are not a skeptic...you are a believer....if you were a skeptic you would have dropped the agw hypothesis, and with it the greenhouse hypothesis at their first joint failure...that being the failure of a tropospheric hot spot to materialize and get warmer with the increase of so called greenhouse gasses...and exactly what actual evidence have you used to make your own "conclusions".....there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the A in the AGW hypothesis..but you still believe..you just believe it is weaker than the serious wackos....tell me about this evidence....is it actual, or just mathematical models?


----------



## IanC (Oct 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I am a skeptic. I look at the evidence, and then examine the conclusions inferred from the evidence, and/or make my own conclusions.
> ...




So tell me SSDD, do you believe in Newton's First Law? Because every observation  ever made says it's wrong. 

How about Newton's second law? Is it obviously wrong, or just incomplete?

Who has seen a body in motion with no forces acting upon it? No one. Who cares if the second law breaks down at relativistic speeds? Next to no one

Are the basic principles involved important even if unobserved under normal conditions? Of course!


----------



## SSDD (Oct 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Diversion...that is useful in magic...but not science...are you pushing science or magic?

You really think that every observation made says that Newton's first law is wrong?  Really?

An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

Describe how every observation ever made says that it is wrong.  Show me a single observation which proves it wrong..much less every observation ever made.


----------



## IanC (Oct 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




No. You're missing the point. There are no observations of an object without unbalanced forces acting upon it. Therefore Newton's first law is imaginary. Only theoretical. No observed proof. 

I agree with Newton's first law, and a bunch of other implied theoretical laws and postulates that cannot actually be seen in reality. The square root of negative one is imaginary but ever so useful. 

You commonly ask for virtual proof of things that are built up from theoretical first principles. When no physically derived evidence is possible you say it is all theory and mumbo jumbo. And then claim something else which also cannot be proven.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 27, 2016)

IanC said:


> [
> 
> 
> No. You're missing the point. There are no observations of an object without unbalanced forces acting upon it. Therefore Newton's first law is imaginary. Only theoretical. No observed proof.



So there are no observations that it is wrong....and the first one that is made will then, cause the law to be rewritten or scrapped.....there is, however, every observation ever made that shows that your notion of energy transfer is wrong.


----------



## IanC (Oct 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




So prove me wrong. Show me an example of an object maintaining it's motion in a straight line, unaffected by outside forces. 

You keep asking for proof that is in the same category. Newton's first law can only be inferred theoretically. You have no example to show me.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 28, 2016)

IanC said:


> So prove me wrong. Show me an example of an object maintaining it's motion in a straight line, unaffected by outside forces.
> 
> You keep asking for proof that is in the same category. Newton's first law can only be inferred theoretically. You have no example to show me.



So now you are reduced to equivocating?  You get more like rocks, crick, and mammoth every day...  There are plenty of observations that your ideas on back radiation are wrong as evidenced by the fact that it can't be measured at ambient temperature....it doesn't exist...


----------



## IanC (Oct 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > So prove me wrong. Show me an example of an object maintaining it's motion in a straight line, unaffected by outside forces.
> ...




Actually I am just using your method of arguing.

Speaking of which, you have stated that IR radiation can't be measured at ambient temperature. Dozens of times, perhaps hundreds of times. Prove it.

You have been given examples of instruments that profess to measure IR at ambient temperature and you then state 'fooled by instrumentation '.  Prove that these instruments are not measuring IR. What are they measuring then? Prove it.

You say these instruments are just measuring temperature differences or electric current produced by thermophile. Prove that these are not caused by incident IR.  Prove it. Will you also be asking that Einstein be stripped of his Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect?

It's time for you to start proving these unsupported declarative statements that you make all the time. Prove it!


----------



## SSDD (Oct 31, 2016)

IanC said:


> Speaking of which, you have stated that IR radiation can't be measured at ambient temperature. Dozens of times, perhaps hundreds of times. Prove it.



No..Ian...I never made such a claim...one more instance of you making up an argument to rail against...I said that back radiation has not (because it does not exist) been measured at ambient temperature.



IanC said:


> You have been given examples of instruments that profess to measure IR at ambient temperature and you then state 'fooled by instrumentation '.  Prove that these instruments are not measuring IR. What are they measuring then? Prove it.



Already have.



IanC said:


> You say these instruments are just measuring temperature differences or electric current produced by thermophile. Prove that these are not caused by incident IR.  Prove it. Will you also be asking that Einstein be stripped of his Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect?



Don't need to...having proved that they are not measuring back radiation.



IanC said:


> It's time for you to start proving these unsupported declarative statements that you make all the time. Prove it!



Unlike you ian, proof exists in support of my position...that is why I hold my position...unlike you who relies entirely on unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical models....you don't have the first bit of proof to support any of what you believe...while I tend to only believe what is supportable by observable, measurable, testable, empirical data.


----------



## IanC (Oct 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of which, you have stated that IR radiation can't be measured at ambient temperature. Dozens of times, perhaps hundreds of times. Prove it.
> ...




Yet another unsupported declarative statement with no evidence to back it up. Start providing the evidence.

In other words, PROVE IT.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 1, 2016)

IanC said:


> Yet another unsupported declarative statement with no evidence to back it up. Start providing the evidence.
> 
> In other words, PROVE IT.



Failure of a tropospheric hot spot to develop and then get warmer as atmospheric CO2 increases...


There, observable, measurable, empirical evidence in support of my statement...ie...proof.


----------



## IanC (Nov 1, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Yet another unsupported declarative statement with no evidence to back it up. Start providing the evidence.
> ...




You are making unsupported declarative statements again. You haven't described the the present tropospheric hotspot or the reasons why it is there. You haven't described the consensus position and predictions for the hotspot and how they diverge from reality. You haven't described the difference between how H2O affects the hotspot and how CO2 affects it.

You haven't said much of anything and you certainly haven't explained your position. Get on with it, explain your position and supply evidence to support it. Prove it.


----------



## IanC (Nov 1, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of which, you have stated that IR radiation can't be measured at ambient temperature. Dozens of times, perhaps hundreds of times. Prove it.
> ...




More bullshit. Prove that the atmosphere doesn't send radiation to the surface. Or that the surface controls the possibility of radiation emission.

Prove it! At least try to make a coherent explanation of your absurd beliefs.


----------



## PredFan (Nov 1, 2016)

My AR-5 doesn't care at all about the Global Warming scam.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 1, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Piss and moan..whine and cry...and on it goes with you....there is no tropospheric hot spot...ergo failure of the hypothesis....and as to consensus...haven't you, yourself stated that consensus is a political term...not scientific...so you are now a hypocrite in addition to all the other bad tendencies your beliefs are driving you to....

The fact that the hotspot isn't there...and isn't warming as CO2 increases is all the evidence I need in support of my statement...more is overkill...and there is plenty.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 1, 2016)

IanC said:


> More bullshit. Prove that the atmosphere doesn't send radiation to the surface. Or that the surface controls the possibility of radiation emission.



the fact that it can not be measured with instruments unless they are cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere is evidence enough...damned but you are becoming a pissy little bitch...is the failure of your hypothesis driving you mad?


----------



## IanC (Nov 1, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > More bullshit. Prove that the atmosphere doesn't send radiation to the surface. Or that the surface controls the possibility of radiation emission.
> ...




None of the instruments I have shown are cooled. Top grade IR cameras are cooled to improve the resolution by removing background interference by waste heat.

Prove that instruments measuring downward radiation are not measuring radiation.

While you are at it, prove that radiation created by molecular collisions in the atmosphere are controlled by surface temperature. Does the surface temperature change the direction of the molecules, the speed of the molecules, or what? Please be specific.

I think it is actually YOU who is being a pissy little bitch because you don't like being called out on your bullshit. Start providing some facts and explanations rather than your usual unsupported declarative statements that you have no evidence to back up.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2016)

IanC said:


> None of the instruments I have shown are cooled.



And none of them are measuring IR...all that they are measuring is temperature changes in a thermopile which can be caused by any number of factors.



IanC said:


> Top grade IR cameras are cooled to improve the resolution by removing background interference by waste heat.



Yes they are...and those of lesser quality that are uncooled operate via a microbolometer...again, nothing more than an internal thermopile with a thermometer to measure temperature differences which result in an electric current which is then "interpreted" via a contrived mathematical formula...so they aren't actually measuring IR...they are just measuring temperature changes of a thermopile.



IanC said:


> Prove that instruments measuring downward radiation are not measuring radiation.



Do you actually believe an internal thermopile is measuring downward radiation?  Honestly, do you really believe that?  Do you believe an internal thermopile can distinguish any sort of IR from any other sort of IR?  You think this device has any idea what is causing it to change temperature?  Look at where your belief, and your efforts to defend it are leading you ian....you wouldn't be here trying to claim that the instrument below knows what it is measuring if you had been a bit skeptical in the first place.








IanC said:


> While you are at it, prove that radiation created by molecular collisions in the atmosphere are controlled by surface temperature. Does the surface temperature change the direction of the molecules, the speed of the molecules, or what? Please be specific.



Why would I want to prove that....the surface temperature is the result of incoming radiation from the sun and the mass of the atmosphere.  It is called the atmospheric thermal effect and gravity is the driver...



IanC said:


> I think it is actually YOU who is being a pissy little bitch because you don't like being called out on your bullshit. Start providing some facts and explanations rather than your usual unsupported declarative statements that you have no evidence to back up.



All you are calling attention to ian is the fact that you can't provide any observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support what you believe...and every instrument you put forward claiming to measure what you believe...isn't.


----------



## IanC (Nov 2, 2016)

Hmmmmm.... let's compare our arguments.

I put up a picture of my instrument working at a site, give some of the resulting data, then give you an independent study describing the performance of the instrument (it was the best at the time of the study).

You counter with "It's not measuring IR because the atmosphere doesn't radiate to the surface", and then post up a picture of a thermocouple from a gas fired boiler.

I explained how molecular collisions cause blackbody radiation in the atmosphere and how the energy got there in the first place, including gravity effects. The basic mechanisms of why everything radiates, in all directions, all the time.

You counter with "No it doesn't". When I asked you how the temperature of the warmer surface controls the molecular collisions in the cooler air above that creates the radiation you say "It's a mystery".

Does that just about cover it? My argument is based on physics principles and your's is based on your opinion and has to be taken on faith even though it goes against physics principles.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > None of the instruments I have shown are cooled.
> ...


*
...so they aren't actually measuring IR...they are just measuring temperature changes of a thermopile.*

Temperature changes caused by IR. Unless you have a different, mysterious cause in mind?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2016)

IanC said:


> You counter with "It's not measuring IR because the atmosphere doesn't radiate to the surface", and then post up a picture of a thermocouple from a gas fired boiler.



There is little difference between the operation of thermocouples no matter what use they are put to......pissy much?



IanC said:


> I explained how molecular collisions cause blackbody radiation in the atmosphere and how the energy got there in the first place, including gravity effects. The basic mechanisms of why everything radiates, in all directions, all the time.



You seem to think that because you "explain" something, that suddenly it becomes truth...or ever was truth..gasses are never black bodies...so much for your "explanation".



IanC said:


> Does that just about cover it? My argument is based on physics principles and your's is based on your opinion and has to be taken on faith even though it goes against physics principles.



Your argument is based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...nothing more.


----------



## IanC (Nov 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > You counter with "It's not measuring IR because the atmosphere doesn't radiate to the surface", and then post up a picture of a thermocouple from a gas fired boiler.
> ...




I never said that the atmosphere was a blackbody. The S-B equation contains a symbol for emissivity. The emissivity of the atmospheric has been observed and measured many times for different IR bands,etc. Do you not understand emissivity, or the role it plays in the S-B equations?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 2, 2016)

You said that molecular collisions result in black body radiation in the atmosphere...simply not true since black body radiation only comes from black bodies...and gasses are never black bodies...ever.

And what I understand is that the S-B equation has no place in trying to explain energy movement in the atmosphere.


----------



## IanC (Nov 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


> You said that molecular collisions result in black body radiation in the atmosphere...simply not true since black body radiation only comes from black bodies...and gasses are never black bodies...ever.
> 
> And what I understand is that the S-B equation has no place in trying to explain energy movement in the atmosphere.




Arguing semantics again? Would you prefer thermal radiation? I guess conduction is out for the atmosphere too because it is a compressible substance and would more aptly be called thermal dispersion. 

I think it is funny that you argue the definitions of processes described by me, while failing to put forward any explanation of what you claim to be happening. Eg radiation caused by molecular collisions being controlled by the temperature of distant objects. How would that work in SSDD'S bizarro alternate universe?

Please, enlighten us, we're all ears.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 7, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You said that molecular collisions result in black body radiation in the atmosphere...simply not true since black body radiation only comes from black bodies...and gasses are never black bodies...ever.
> ...


well for the umpteenth time, if there was a thermal radiation presence in the atmosphere, then there would be a hotspot there.  Show us the hot spot!


----------



## IanC (Nov 8, 2016)

Show us that you have even the vaguest inkling of what the tropospheric hotspot is, and how it pertains to atmospheric energy balances, and I will discuss it with you.

At this point I believe that you are just throwing out 'sciencey' words with no concept of what they mean.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 8, 2016)

IanC said:


> Show us that you have even the vaguest inkling of what the tropospheric hotspot is, and how it pertains to atmospheric energy balances, and I will discuss it with you.
> 
> At this point I believe that you are just throwing out 'sciencey' words with no concept of what they mean.


well in the troposphere, The troposphere contains all of the Earth's weather and 99 percent of its water vapor. Thickest over the equator and thinnest over the north and south poles, the troposphere contains 75 percent of the mass of the Earth's atmosphere and is largely responsible for protecting as well as insulating the planet.

is the top of the troposphere hot or cold?


----------



## IanC (Nov 8, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Show us that you have even the vaguest inkling of what the tropospheric hotspot is, and how it pertains to atmospheric energy balances, and I will discuss it with you.
> ...



A start at least. Now what is considered the tropospheric hotspot? How does it relate to the lapse rate. Is height of the TH important?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2016)

IanC said:


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


first answer the question, is the top of the troposphere warm or cold?  It was in my post and you didn't answer.  seems you always wish to avoid answering and instead ask questions. I owe you nothing bubba.  if you choose not to answer, just points at the inaccuracy of your thought process.  Thanks,


----------



## IanC (Nov 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


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




I dont think you understand what the tropospheric hotspot is, or how it should change with the warmers's climate models, or what it has done in reality. until you demonstrate some basic knowledge I am going to decline to argue the topic with you. 

not that long ago you were making vague generalizations about (I think) gravity and surface temps. I encouraged you to champion your cause and fill in the details. but you immediately dropped the topic, presumably because you were unable to articulate your position or you were just too lazy to make the effort.



> is the top of the troposphere hot or cold?



the answer is yes. satisfied?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2016)

IanC said:


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


I would prefer that you merely answer the question asked.  avoidance means I'm right.


----------



## IanC (Nov 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


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




I answered your question! in a very similar fashion to the way that you and SSDD answer questions. you guys refuse to answer direct and specific questions inspired by your own unsupported declarative statements. 

you say "instruments cannot measure backradiation without being cooled"

I say " which instruments are cooled and what is the reason why they are cooled"

you respond with "tropospheric hotspot"


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2016)

IanC said:


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


Carbon Taxes “No Scientific Basis” as IR Thermometer Makers Debunk Radiation Claims

"To affirm Latour’s victory colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) contacted the world’s leading manufacturer of hand held IR thermometers, Mikron Instrument Company Inc., for confirmation of Spencer’s  misunderstandings that IRT’s prove CO2 and GHE warming. Sure enough Mikron affirmed that IRT’s are set “to evade atmospheric moisture over long path measurements.” This, they say, is necessary to “*avoid interference from CO2 and H2O*.”  [1] Sadly for Roy, these thermometers therefore aren’t even measuring the gases he claims they are!"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



Thanks for the link.
_
I accept radiation detector surfaces need not be colder than the incident radiation to detect and measure cold radiation. My eyes see ice. My eyes do not re-radiate ice light. Penzias & Wilson detected __CMBR__ = 3.7 K in 1964 with a radio telescope in a warmer NJ. Radio telescopes do not re-radiate CMBR. I suppose warm IR thermometers can indeed measure radiating temperature of colder refrigerators, without absorbing refrigerator radiation and warming further.
_
He admits that radiation from colder matter can be measured by a warmer detector.
Thanks.
Please let SSDD know that your source refuted his confused claims.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Much different reasons than your claim.

"In short, Latour and other PSI researchers argue climatologists need to drop the unphysical term “back-radiation” and more correctly explain that what they mean is “downward” radiation. But  that does not _per se_ add to, or delay heat transport. Any such downward radiation can be composed of two or more sources; remember the atmosphere is heated up also by solar radiation. The air absorbs 14% of solar radiation before it touches the surface. Oxygen, water vapor, and dust are the components of the air that absorb directly part of the incoming solar radiation.


----------



## IanC (Nov 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


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




I read the PSI piece, the manufacturer's statement, and the Spencer article with the comment quoted by PSI. the evidence does not support the headline.

I would encourage everyone to read all three. I found useful information that actually improved my understanding of the topic.


SSDD left the discussion after I jumped in, I wonder why? now jc brings it up again, will he actually discuss it, or is he just happy to present the misleading headline?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2016)

IanC said:


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


Answer my question on the upper troposphere


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Much different reasons than your claim.
*
My claim? It's your source.

*climatologists need to drop the unphysical term “back-radiation” and more correctly explain that what they mean is “downward” radiation.*

You said the atmosphere doesn't radiate downward.
Your source disagrees with you.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 And I stand by that. That article doesn't prove that.  nowhere in it does it state that it comes from the atmosphere as back radiation. I posted the quote so stop yourself


----------



## Lewdog (Nov 11, 2016)

> Climate change is the “biggest long-term security threat” facing the region, Adm. Samuel J. Locklear III, then head of U.S. Pacific Command, said in 2013.
> 
> The Pentagon also expects to expand operations in the Arctic, the world’s fastest-warming region.
> 
> So much sea ice has melted that a northern shipping route over Russia and a northwest passage over Canada are now open to navigation and oil and gas exploitation for much of the year. Partly as a result, Russia is reopening Cold War-era military bases on its Arctic coastline.



Climate change is real: Just ask the Pentagon


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*And I stand by that.*

You stand by your claim, the claim your own source disagrees with.
*
nowhere in it does it state that it comes from the atmosphere as back radiation.*

It says, don't call it back radiation, call it downward radiation.

"Any such downward radiation can be composed of two or more sources"

See, downward radiation. They're disagreeing with your claim.

*I posted the quote so stop yourself*

Stop showing that your own source disagrees with you? LOL!
'


----------



## IanC (Nov 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...





I asked SSDD to define back radiation a few days ago. he answered but I lost the reply and I dont know which thread it is in.

he said it was something like....radiation that leaves the surface and comes back to the surface. I wish I had questioned him further.

so jc, what does back radiation mean to you? is it different than downward radiation?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



IR Thermometer Makers Debunk Radiation Claims
_
An infrared thermometer measures temperature by detecting the infrared energy emitted by all materials which are at temperatures above absolute zero, (0°Kelvin)_

Weird, because SSDD claims that often materials above 0K don't emit
_
1. Kirchoff’s Law When an object is at thermal equilibrium, the amount of absorption will equal the amount of emission. a = e_


That's weird, how can an object at equilibrium emit and absorb at the same time?
That disagrees with SSDD too.

http://www.omega.com/temperature/Z/pdf/z063-066.pdf

Thanks for the tip.
There is even a nice drawing at this link which shows a cold object emitting toward a hot object.

You have any more links you'd like to post that also disagree with your claims?


----------



## IanC (Nov 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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




I can't be sure, but I think 99.99% of any links that are appropriate to this topic disagree with his claims.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Backward implies returning. There is no radiation returning.

 By the way, it's what you can't prove!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



*Backward implies returning. There is no radiation returning.*
_
Any such downward radiation can be composed of two or more sources_

Your own source disagrees.


----------



## IanC (Nov 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


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




we supplied numerous sources of data for the measurement of radiation coming from the atmosphere down to the surface. you refuse to acknowledge them or give any explanation as to why you reject them except to throw out unsubstantiated declaritive statements such as 'fooled by instrumentation'.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


How?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2016)

IanC said:


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


Actually I never said fooled by instruments that was SSDD.  I never said radiation didn't come towards the surface I said, back radiation


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



_Any such downward radiation can be composed of two or more sources_


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



*I never said radiation didn't come towards the surface I said, back radiation*

Why is "regular" radiation able to move downward, toward the surface,
but "back" radiation can't manage to do the same?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


A thing called the sun


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



A thing called the sun.....allows downward IR at night?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Nope. Myth


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



A thing called the sun.....prevents downward radiation?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



_Any such downward radiation can be composed of two or more sources
_
Your own source disagrees.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


What's the third?


----------



## IanC (Nov 11, 2016)

jc turns into a blithering idiot rather than continue a discussion that he knows he lost.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



That's a good question for your source, the one that disagrees with your claim.

Let me know what they say.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



From my link:
"Thus, from the “horse’s mouth” the hand held thermometer gambit is well and truly busted.  Professor Claes Johnson thereafter also persuaded Dr. Curry to abandon “back radiation.” But unlike Curry, Spencer  did not renounce his “back radiation adds more heat” claims. So Latour pressed home the point to explain to Spencer:


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



*Backward implies returning. There is no radiation returning.*

Is that because the CO2 captures the heat before escaping the atmosphere with it?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Here's what they wrote:

"Thus, from the “horse’s mouth” the hand held thermometer gambit is well and truly busted.  Professor Claes Johnson thereafter also persuaded Dr. Curry to abandon “back radiation.” But unlike Curry, Spencer  did not renounce his “back radiation adds more heat” claims. So Latour pressed home the point to explain to Spencer:"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



And the next sentence from your link.....
_
“My radio antenna detects and absorbs cold radio waves but it does not re-emit them with higher intensity than it intercepted them"

Carbon Taxes “No Scientific Basis” as IR Thermometer Makers Debunk Radiation Claims_


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Electronically emitted power. Why does it fade out over distances?

 If you shut the microwave door and hit the power button for one minute, is the inside of the microwave hot?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Electronically emitted power*

Cold radio waves, from the beginning of the Universe, the Big Bang, CBR, is electronically emitted power?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Why do the radio waves fade?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



We can detect radio waves emitted billions of years ago.
Just another fact that disproves your silly claims.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


What station is it?


----------



## IanC (Nov 12, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




you foolishly are deferring to authority. did you check out the claim 'Curry renounces back radiation'? I suspect her real words say no such thing.

I have tried to converse with many of the knuckleheads that you think 'speak the truth'. they frame their discussions in a set fashion with certain talking points and refuse to debate the details that contradict their conclusions. this is just as bad as the warmers who do the same thing in the same fashion in many instances.

you lack the intellectual capacity to think things through for yourself, so you just pick a side to believe in.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 13, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You can't prove anything named back radiation. Dude you call me names all day I give a fk. My belief is fact, yours made up. Let's just call a spade a spade!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



*You can't prove anything named back radiation.*





Here is a measurement of back radiation.
Call it something else if that makes you feel better.
Incoming long-wave radiation work for you?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> [
> 
> *You can't prove anything named back radiation.*
> 
> ...



Measured with an instrument cooled to -80F


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I so enjoy watching you skate.  Are you ever going to take lessons and learn how to actually skate?  you should actually learn the difference between downward IR and back radiation.  One implies one thing, the other another.  but you know this.  You can't prove the back part.

you still haven't answered why if you shut the microwave door and turn on the microwave for one minute, does the inside of the microwave get hot?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


we can.  not too many places though right?  BTW, where do these radio waves come from?  Did they just magically show up, or is there a reason why they are there?  Let's hear your explanation on this one.

And I believe the only place they are measuring these radio waves is in New Zealand.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so Ian let's see her real words.  It seems you question the authenticity of the claim.  Post up what she said.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



So what?
Do you feel the incoming long-wave radiation did not exist until the instrument was cooled?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
you should actually learn the difference between downward IR and back radiation.*

Explain the difference.

*does the inside of the microwave get hot?*

_Microwave Precaution (Operating Empty)_
_Do not operate the oven while empty to avoid damage to the oven or the possibility of a fire._

_If by accident the oven should run empty for a minimal amount of time (approx 5 min), no harm is done. Do try to avoid operating the oven empty at all times--it saves energy and prolongs the life of the oven._

_However, if running the oven empty should occur, it may overheat and shut down. Allow the oven to cool down and reset itself. Try using the oven again normally to make sure it is heating._

Microwave Precaution (Operating Empty)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*we can. not too many places though right?*

Any place we build a detector. They come in from the entire sky.

*BTW, where do these radio waves come from?  Did they just magically show up, or is there a reason why they are there?* 

They come from the Big Bang.

*And I believe the only place they are measuring these radio waves is in New Zealand.*

They were first detected/explained based on a radio telescope in New Jersey.

Cosmic Anniversary: 'Big Bang Echo' Discovered 50 Years Ago Today


----------



## IanC (Nov 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


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




first off, Curry has many guest posts by outside authors that she respects but does not necessarily agree with. do you know who penned the article in question?

here is the comment in the article that Johnson spun into  "Professor Claes Johnson thereafter also persuaded Dr. Curry to abandon back radiation."



> curryja | August 13, 2011 at 10:10 am |
> Back radiation is a phrase, one that I don’t use myself, and it is not a word that is used in technical radiative transfer studies. The argument is made technically from the spectral infrared absorption and emission of CO2 and other gases.



is this a renouncement of anything? I dont think so


----------



## IanC (Nov 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




present your proof that this data was produced by an instrument cooled to -80F.  what refrigerant was used to attain this temperature?

I have presented data and graphs very similar to toddster, and they were measured by ambient temperature instruments. even if some instruments are cooled, you have totally ignored calls to explain and prove that the reduced temperature is a necessary precondition to the method of measurement for anything other than speed of response or sensitivity.

will you now present that evidence?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so, you still haven't answered the question which isn't unusual for you.  When did I say five minutes?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well in 1964 I supposed FM radio wasn't in full mass yet, so that makes sense.  However, today, New Zealand is where the new field is for listening to the stars radio.

Yep, the big bang.  They arrived due to force from the big bang expansion. Force!!!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2016)

IanC said:


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


so where exactly was my article wrong?  you just confirmed what the article stated.  Again, CO2 absorbs incoming IR from the sun.  How is that out of context from what she claims?

So?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Which question do you feel I haven't answered?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
well in 1964 I supposed FM radio wasn't in full mass yet, so that makes sense.*

What does FM radio have to do with detecting energy from the Big Bang?

*They arrived due to force from the big bang expansion.*

What does force have to do with the discussion?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



*Again, CO2 absorbs incoming IR from the sun.*

And outgoing radiation from the surface. It emits some of this IR, without regard to direction.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


it's the frequency the radio waves come in on.  I just watched a series on it on the scifi channel.  New Zealand is where there is someone recording those waves from the first star.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


the outgoing upward.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
it's the frequency the radio waves come in on.*

You think our FM broadcasts are on the same frequency as CMBR?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



And downward and sideways.

That's what, "without regard to direction" means.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


it's what they said on the broadcast I watched from New Zealand.  Have to go there to get out of the interference of the FM radio stations.  hmmmmmmmm seems you don't know this.  When I get home tonight I'll get you the series it came from.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


sideways, maybe, after that, upwards.  sorry charlie


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Don't bother, my FM radio doesn't pick up CMBR, no matter what your confused recollection was.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes, your confusion is sorry.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


mk


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


your apology is accepted.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I apologize for your sorry lack of knowledge.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


you should just thank me for making you smarter.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 15, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I agree, explaining things to a 10 year old has made me smarter.
Not as smart as SSDD's photons, they know everything!


----------



## IanC (Nov 17, 2016)

IanC said:


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




bump for jc


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2016)

IanC said:


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


well again, perhaps you could give me your definition of back radiation.


----------



## IanC (Nov 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



I gave you my description/definition on the other thread where you asked. again.

when are you going to give your definition?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



That is the problem with luke warmers.. You can not differentiate what is naturally caused and what is GHG caused. You have no clue as to what the origination of downward radiation in the LWIR band comes from. You also can not show, by empirical evidence, how it affects the earths open atmosphere.

The null hypothesis eviscerates the global warming theroy as, ONE, you can not show what is man made and what is naturally occurring down ward LWIR and, TWO, The theoretical amounts you say are being retained in the system are not causing measurable changes outside of what is expected from NATURAL VARIATION.

The fact that a mid troposphere hot spot has not manifested itself, as identified by IPCC documents and is the theoretical "bottle neck", disproves the DWLWIR theroy.

Now why would this not occur?

Convection and transport in the water cycle.  Several studies are in progress showing that the amount of LWIR emanating from the upper troposphere has increased by 2.2%(point of water renucleation and LWIR release at a much longer wave length) and mid troposphere bandpass has declined by 1.3 - 2.2% (done by balloon direct measurement). This energy had to go somewhere. The earth is acting like the earth and uses a secondary route of energy release keeping the energy in/out balance despite mans influence. The boys over at the Boulder, Co lab have been keeping a lid on this work in progress as it smashes the AGW hypothesis to bits.

IT shows that down ward LWIR is being countered and that its net result in warming is zero.

To answer many of the back and forths in this thread about theoretical's...

All matter radiates in all directions.. What that LWIR does is still an unknown and  empirical evidence has not yet shown what it does and how it does it. All modeling of this, to date, fails empirical review (doesn't mesh with reality and observed behavior of matter).

Cooler black bodies can not warm warmer ones. Violates the laws of thermal energy travel.

Entropy (energy release) is dependent on the matter doing the transport and the temperature gradient of the matter or different types of matter through which it passes.

Grey Bodies are cooler than black and thus their effect is null. (LWIR wave length is the main reason, theoretical energy contained in the wave)


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 19, 2016)

What I am finding interesting about the new studies is the water cycle does not have to increase for water to hold greater energy.  Water vapor has an incredible capacity for energy retention that is unused in cooler atmospheres.  This goes to entropy and the matter used in transport..  They theorize that waters energy holding capability is barely being used and thus CO2 and its theoretical slowing of energy release will be easily countered upwards to 9,000ppm or greater and happens near surface totally negating any chance of a mid troposphere hot spot.

This is the reason the earth has never strayed form its roughly 12 deg C boundaries of temperature variation.  And why we have seen glacial periods with CO2 levels of 7,000ppm..

Buffered systems always respond slower to abrupt changes in solar output. CO2 might cause a short term rise in temp but the buffer will always win the battle.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 19, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
That is the problem with luke warmers.. You can not differentiate what is naturally caused and what is GHG caused.*

Since I'm not in favor of wasting trillions on windmills and I don't want to damage our economy to drop temps in 2080 by 0.1 degrees, I have the luxury of not caring which portion of any potential increase in temperature is due to fossil fuel burning.
*
You have no clue as to what the origination of downward radiation in the LWIR band comes from.
*
Please, enlighten me.
*
All matter radiates in all directions..
*
Excellent! Please convince SSDD and jc, so I can stop wasting my time trying to educate them.
*
*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*Please, enlighten me.
*
No one knows.  As I previously pointed out, no model can show how much or why..  What the current study is doing is taking sections of our atmosphere and assessing what makes it through, at what wavelength, and what is being reflected or re-emitted towards the ground . Then applying what the reaction of other systems is on it.  What they are finding is stunning...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 19, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


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



*No one knows.*

No one knows where LWIR comes from? You're joking, right?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Love the straw man argument.. the twisting of what I said.. We know what wavelengths are most likely associated with what gases. What we don't know is how much of it is naturally occurring and how much of it is man caused.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 19, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


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




Straw man? LOL!

*You have no clue as to what the origination of downward radiation in the LWIR band comes from.
*
_ Please, enlighten me._

Tell me, what are the choices for the origin of "*downward radiation in the LWIR band"*?
*
What we don't know is how much of it is naturally occurring and how much of it is man caused.*

So what you're saying now is that my response to your confused, original statement, wasn't a straw man?
*
*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Got to love your circular logic...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 19, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


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



And your confused understanding of straw man.


----------

