Another Epic Fail for Climate Science

[jc456]

Sorry again hairball, but your graph still doesn't go into the far IR range....

Pissdrinker, your evasions keep getting more pathetic. Why not admit what everyone already understands, that you pooched the science hard, again?

and again, you are talking about reflectivity when the topic is absorptivity and emissivity.

Damn, you're stupid. But then, you're emotionally invested in being stupid. It's not possible to be both a loyal pissdrinking cultist and to be intelligent, so you actively work on being stupid.

Again, real world, anything not reflected is absorbed. Reflectivity is near zero for water in the mid and far IR, hence the oceans absorb almost all of that IR. Period.

So, once more, you're declaring the past century of physics is all wrong, all the scientists are wrong, and that only your kook blog understands the RealTruth. That's why you're considered to be a cultist laughingstock.

Skook and jc, you don't yet qualify as "laughingstock". You'll need to graduate from "buttboy" first in order to reach "laughingstock".

It doesn't matter because SSDD knows that warmer atmosphere doesn't radiate toward cooler water.

Don't worry, he's on the emergency list for a brain transplant.

Yet cool atmosphere does not make the surface warmer!

They think it does. ..just not as warm as the real warmer wackos....they believe in the magic. ..they just don't think the magic is as strong

don't know, you put ice in a glass of liquid and it becomes cooler not warmer. Not sure how that actually works the other way. Haven't found one yet that does the opposite of that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry again hairball, but your graph still doesn't go into the far IR range....

Pissdrinker, your evasions keep getting more pathetic. Why not admit what everyone already understands, that you pooched the science hard, again?

and again, you are talking about reflectivity when the topic is absorptivity and emissivity.

Damn, you're stupid. But then, you're emotionally invested in being stupid. It's not possible to be both a loyal pissdrinking cultist and to be intelligent, so you actively work on being stupid.

Again, real world, anything not reflected is absorbed. Reflectivity is near zero for water in the mid and far IR, hence the oceans absorb almost all of that IR. Period.

So, once more, you're declaring the past century of physics is all wrong, all the scientists are wrong, and that only your kook blog understands the RealTruth. That's why you're considered to be a cultist laughingstock.

Skook and jc, you don't yet qualify as "laughingstock". You'll need to graduate from "buttboy" first in order to reach "laughingstock".

It doesn't matter because SSDD knows that warmer atmosphere doesn't radiate toward cooler water.

Don't worry, he's on the emergency list for a brain transplant.

Yet cool atmosphere does not make the surface warmer!

Yet cool atmosphere does not make the surface warmer!

The atmosphere doesn't radiate according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It doesn't matter because SSDD knows that warmer atmosphere doesn't radiate toward cooler water.

Don't worry, he's on the emergency list for a brain transplant.

You get more stupid and dishonest every day...must have been real frustrating not being able to support your position...childish comment but not unexpected

You never did say whether infrared pictures of the sunlit side of the Earth were possible.
Why are you afraid to answer?

Got to be one of your stupidest attempts to prove your unobservable, unmeasurable, untested beliefs...why do you think you couldn't take photos of light reflected from the sun....unless the camera were hotter than the sun

Got to be one of your stupidest attempts to prove your unobservable, unmeasurable, untested beliefs...why do you think you couldn't take photos of light reflected from the sun....unless the camera were hotter than the sun

Hey, snapperhead, INFRARED.
Are you going to claim that infrared satellite pictures of the Earth are possible because the Sun's infrared radiation is bouncing off the Earth?

Is infrared not light? Whatever point you are trying to make is going to fail because energy always moves to a state of higher entropy

Is infrared not light?

Are infrared satellite photos based on reflected infrared?

 

[SSDD]

The atmosphere doesn't radiate according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?

Of course it does....the SB law describes a one way energy exchange between a warm radiator and its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that exchange being determined by the temperature differential between the radiator and its surroundings.

Your failing is that you believe in two way energy flow based on an unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical model over every observation ever made.

 

[SSDD]

Are infrared satellite photos based on reflected infrared?

You get more convoluted with every post....where do you think the energy comes from? Do you think that because the incoming radiation from the sun changes from shortwave to long wave that the second law is somehow invalidated? There is energy in and energy out...the form is irrelevant. Energy moves from a lower entropy state to a higher entropy state...not the other way...no matter how hard you torture the subject.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are infrared satellite photos based on reflected infrared?

You get more convoluted with every post....where do you think the energy comes from? Do you think that because the incoming radiation from the sun changes from shortwave to long wave that the second law is somehow invalidated? There is energy in and energy out...the form is irrelevant. Energy moves from a lower entropy state to a higher entropy state...not the other way...no matter how hard you torture the subject.

I notice you didn't answer the question.
Are infrared satellite photos based on reflected infrared?

 

[SSDD]

Are infrared satellite photos based on reflected infrared?

You get more convoluted with every post....where do you think the energy comes from? Do you think that because the incoming radiation from the sun changes from shortwave to long wave that the second law is somehow invalidated? There is energy in and energy out...the form is irrelevant. Energy moves from a lower entropy state to a higher entropy state...not the other way...no matter how hard you torture the subject.

I notice you didn't answer the question.
Are infrared satellite photos based on reflected infrared?

I answered your question....sorry the answer wasn't something you were able to torture into what you wanted....IR, like all energy moves from warm to cool.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are infrared satellite photos based on reflected infrared?

You get more convoluted with every post....where do you think the energy comes from? Do you think that because that the second law is somehow invalidated? There is energy in and energy out...the form is irrelevant. Energy moves from a lower entropy state to a higher entropy state...not the other way...no matter how hard you torture the subject.

I notice you didn't answer the question.
Are infrared satellite photos based on reflected infrared?

I answered your question....sorry the answer wasn't something you were able to torture into what you wanted....IR, like all energy moves from warm to cool.

I answered your question....

No you didn't, liar.

the incoming radiation from the sun changes from shortwave to long wave

You said it was reflected, idiot.

 

[rdean]

Another epic failure for SSDD 's understanding of basic science

Your first link:
Abstract
Presently, there are no global measurement constraints on the surface emissivity at wavelengths longer than 15 μm, even though this surface property in this far-IR region has a direct impact on the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and infrared cooling rates where the column precipitable water vapor (PWV) is less than 1 mm. Such dry conditions are common for high-altitude and high-latitude locations, with the potential for modeled climate to be impacted by uncertain surface characteristics. This paper explores the sensitivity of instantaneous OLR and cooling rates to changes in far-IR surface emissivity and how this unconstrained property impacts climate model projections. At high latitudes and altitudes, a 0.05 change in emissivity due to mineralogy and snow grain size can cause a 1.8–2.0 W m−2 difference in the instantaneous clear-sky OLR. A variety of radiative transfer techniques have been used to model the far-IR spectral emissivities of surface types defined by the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program. Incorporating these far-IR surface emissivities into the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario of the Community Earth System Model leads to discernible changes in the spatial patterns of surface temperature, OLR, and frozen surface extent. The model results differ at high latitudes by as much as 2°K, 10 W m−2, and 15%, respectively, after only 25 y of integration. Additionally, the calculated difference in far-IR emissivity between ocean and sea ice of between 0.1 and 0.2, suggests the potential for a far-IR positive feedback for polar climate change.

Significance
We find that many of the Earth's climate variables, including surface temperature, outgoing longwave radiation, cooling rates, and frozen surface extent, are sensitive to far-IR surface emissivity, a largely unconstrained, temporally and spatially heterogeneous scaling factor for the blackbody radiation from the surface at wavelengths between 15 μm and 100 μm. We also describe a previously unidentified mechanism that amplifies high-latitude and high-altitude warming in finding significantly lower values of far-IR emissivity for ocean and desert surfaces than for sea ice and snow. This leads to a decrease in surface emission at far-IR wavelengths, reduced cooling to space, and warmer radiative surface temperatures. Far-IR emissivity can be measured from spectrally resolved observations, but such measurements have not yet been made.

SSDD, what do you think the effect of positive feedback would be?

Why were the model results differences given as a POSITIVE 2K?

Three guesses and the first two don't count. This article is contending that the Earth will heat up FASTER than current models show.

How did you get this stupid?

Thank you. I read it's links and couldn't figure out how these conclusions were being reached. So I read them again. Then I looked up the terms to make sure I understood what "blackbody" and "far-IR" actually meant.

Sensitivity of outgoing longwave radiative flux to the global vertical distribution of ozone characterized by instantaneous radiative kernels from Aura-TES - Worden - 2011 - Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library

I should have saved myself time and read what you wrote.

 

[SSDD]

Are infrared satellite photos based on reflected infrared?

You get more convoluted with every post....where do you think the energy comes from? Do you think that because that the second law is somehow invalidated? There is energy in and energy out...the form is irrelevant. Energy moves from a lower entropy state to a higher entropy state...not the other way...no matter how hard you torture the subject.

I notice you didn't answer the question.
Are infrared satellite photos based on reflected infrared?

I answered your question....sorry the answer wasn't something you were able to torture into what you wanted....IR, like all energy moves from warm to cool.

I answered your question....

No you didn't, liar.

the incoming radiation from the sun changes from shortwave to long wave

You said it was reflected, idiot.

You think being converted from absorbed shortwave to emitted long wave equals reflection?

 

[Crick]

You think CO2 absorbs photons and then emits them again in zero time? That would constitute a reflection, now wouldn't it. If it takes a finite amount of time (and it does) then the CO2's temperature must increase.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are infrared satellite photos based on reflected infrared?

You get more convoluted with every post....where do you think the energy comes from? Do you think that because that the second law is somehow invalidated? There is energy in and energy out...the form is irrelevant. Energy moves from a lower entropy state to a higher entropy state...not the other way...no matter how hard you torture the subject.

I notice you didn't answer the question.
Are infrared satellite photos based on reflected infrared?

I answered your question....sorry the answer wasn't something you were able to torture into what you wanted....IR, like all energy moves from warm to cool.

I answered your question....

No you didn't, liar.

the incoming radiation from the sun changes from shortwave to long wave

You said it was reflected, idiot.

You think being converted from absorbed shortwave to emitted long wave equals reflection?

You think being converted from absorbed shortwave to emitted long wave equals reflection?

No, that's your idiocy I'm mocking.

 

[SSDD]

No, that's your idiocy I'm mocking.

And still you can't find a single observed, measured example to support your belief...I would mock you for believing in magic if I thought you were worth the effort

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, that's your idiocy I'm mocking.

And still you can't find a single observed, measured example to support your belief...I would mock you for believing in magic if I thought you were worth the effort

My belief? LOL!
Have you never seen an infrared satellite image of the day side of the Earth?

 

[SSDD]

Yes, I have seen an IR image of the earth...

Why don't you just get to your point...whatever you have been trying to get at has become so convoluted that I doubt that you even know what it is any more....Why do you suppose it would surprise anyone that an IR image could be taken on either side of the earth? IR images of practically any object can be produced...point the thermopile at an object...either it is absorbing energy from the object in which case the rate of warming is measured and then converted to a rendered image or it is losing energy to the object because the object is cooler in which case the rate of cooling is measured and then converted to a rendered image....The image is the result of a mathematical model that measures heat gain or heat loss...it isn't an actual photograph....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, I have seen an IR image of the earth...

Why don't you just get to your point...whatever you have been trying to get at has become so convoluted that I doubt that you even know what it is any more....Why do you suppose it would surprise anyone that an IR image could be taken on either side of the earth? IR images of practically any object can be produced...point the thermopile at an object...either it is absorbing energy from the object in which case the rate of warming is measured and then converted to a rendered image or it is losing energy to the object because the object is cooler in which case the rate of cooling is measured and then converted to a rendered image....The image is the result of a mathematical model that measures heat gain or heat loss...it isn't an actual photograph....

Do you think that every one of those photons manages to miss the Sun?

 

[Billy_Bob]

You think CO2 absorbs photons and then emits them again in zero time? That would constitute a reflection, now wouldn't it. If it takes a finite amount of time (and it does) then the CO2's temperature must increase.

The CO2 molecule does not increase in temp.. it is incapable of heat transfer. IR passes right through it to space.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, I have seen an IR image of the earth...

Why don't you just get to your point...whatever you have been trying to get at has become so convoluted that I doubt that you even know what it is any more....Why do you suppose it would surprise anyone that an IR image could be taken on either side of the earth? IR images of practically any object can be produced...point the thermopile at an object...either it is absorbing energy from the object in which case the rate of warming is measured and then converted to a rendered image or it is losing energy to the object because the object is cooler in which case the rate of cooling is measured and then converted to a rendered image....The image is the result of a mathematical model that measures heat gain or heat loss...it isn't an actual photograph....

Do you think that every one of those photons manages to miss the Sun?

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[SSDD]

You think CO2 absorbs photons and then emits them again in zero time? That would constitute a reflection, now wouldn't it. If it takes a finite amount of time (and it does) then the CO2's temperature must increase.

The CO2 molecule does not increase in temp.. it is incapable of heat transfer. IR passes right through it to space.

It does increase slightly in energy, if not heat in order to emit a photon (assuming that photons exist)...Energy is emitted at a very slightly lower wavelength than at which it were absorbed. The energy is lost immediately of course, with the emission of the photon....no warming whatsoever.

 

[Crick]

You two should get married. Your offspring would be a genetic experiment of the first order. Reverse evolution.