Arctic ice thins dramatically

[CrusaderFrank]

Now Bentwire, we have measurements of the outgoing infrared from satellites. They show a diminuation of energy at the wavelengths absorbed by the GHGs. A diminuation that is increasing as we increase the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere.

Yeah, I have seen those "measurements" posted by your side. One graph that makes a comparison to nothing, claiming to prove a reduction in olr. But when you look at the graphs that your graph supposedly compares itself to, you see that there is no difference at all and the report itself talks about massaging the modern numbers while the original numbers must have been feeling fine as they needed no massaging at all.

That is about as definitive of an experiment as you can get.

Well, it is about as definitive example of pseudoscientific fraud as one might find. If you would like to see all the graphs, I will happily oblidge. You look at them and tell me where you see the claimed changes in OLR.

Here is an overlay of snapshots of outgoing long wave radiation taken in 1970 by the sattellite IRIS and in 1997 by the sattellite IMG in 1997. Both snapshots were taken over the central pacific at the same time of the year and under the same conditions.

The X axis of the graph indicates wavelengths. The wavelengths that CO2 absorbs, remember are 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micrometers. The light colored line is the IRIS data collected in 1970 and the darker line is the IMG data from 1997. If AGW theory were correct, the IMG data from 1997 should show less outgoing longwave radiation than the IRIS data from 1970 as there is certainly more CO2 in the atmosphere in 1997 than there was in 1970. As you can see, the longwave radiation from the two separate snapshots is identical indicating no additional absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 wavelengths even though there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The next two images were taken by IRIS in 1970 and TES in 2006 respectively. In these graphs, the black line represents the actual measurement taken by the sattellite, the red line represents what the climate models predict and the blue line represents the difference between the model data and the actual data.

Feel free to print out the two graphs and overlay them. You will find that the black lines (actual measured data) are identical indicating this time, that there is no difference between outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption spectrum between 1970 and 2006. Again, if AGW theory were correct, then the outgoing longwave radiation should be less as the blue lines on the graphs indicate. As you can see, this is not the case. There has been no increase in the absorption of outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 spectrum between 1970 and 2006 in spite of the presence of more atmospheric CO2.

The Warmers respond:

 

[Old Rocks]

Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present | Proceedings - SPIE Digital Library

Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present
Proc. SPIE 5543, 164 (2004); doi:10.1117/12.556803

Conference Date: Monday 02 August 2004
Conference Location: Denver, CO, USA
Conference Title: Infrared Spaceborne Remote Sensing XII
Conference Chairs: Marija Strojnik





Alerts
Alert Me When Cited Alert Me When Corrected Tools
Download Citation Add to MyScitation Blog This Article Print-Friendly Research Toolkit Share
Email Abstract Connotea CiteULike del.icio.us BibSonomy Tweet this Article Add to Facebook Abstract Jennifer A. Griggs and John E. Harries
Imperial College London (United Kingdom)

Measurements of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave radiation allows signatures of many aspects of greenhouse warming to be distinguished without the need to amalgamate information from multiple measurements, allowing direct interpretation of the error characteristics. Here, data from three instruments measuring the spectrally resolved outgoing longwave radiation from satellites orbiting in 1970, 1997 and 2003 are compared. The data are calibrated to remove the effects of differing resolutions and fields of view so that a direct comparison can be made. Comparisons are made of the average spectrum of clear sky outgoing longwave radiation over the oceans in the months of April, May and June. Difference spectra are compared to simulations created using the known changes in greenhouse gases such as CH4, CO2 and O3 over the time period. This provides direct evidence for significant changes in the greenhouse gases over the last 34 years, consistent with concerns over the changes in radiative forcing of the climate.

 

[Old Rocks]

A blog with links to the original papers.

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".

This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matching the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect

 

[wirebender]

What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. /QUOTE]

Correction. What they found was that the simulations predicted such a drop. I have provided you the graphs from the 70's and the more modern era. Point out to me where there is an actual decrease in OLR as opposed to a simulated prediction of OLR.

 

[wirebender]

All of the open air measurements of absorption and emission spectra of the various atmospheric constituents, the measurements of surface emissions the TOA emission and impingement measurements, the night-time backradiation all of these definitively establish and quantify the basis of atmospheric ghg effects. Convection and conduction effects are appropriately integrated into all general climate studies and models but they play distinct and otherwise accounted for roles, it is the additional retained energy from ghg effects that provide the additional retained energies we see resulting in an increasingly warmer climate.

I am going to have to get to this a piece at a time due to time constraints but this being the most important, I will touch on it first. Off the bat, let me state emphatically that I am not a "math" guy. Even though I took a great deal of it in college, it never became like a "language" to me. I can do it but it takes a concentrated effort on my part.

Open aire measurements of absorption and emission spectra. I am guessing you mean the decades worth of measurements taken by agencies such as the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement climate research facility (ARM Climate Research Facility) that claim to demonstrate downdwelling radiation resulting from greenhouse gasses.

They point an infrared radiometer at the sky and make measurements. The question is what are they measuring and does it prove the greenhouse hypothesis in any manner? What is actually happening when you point that instrument at the sky?

An infrared radiometer pointed at the sky will measure the frequency of any incoming "light" and makes a calculation based on Wien's displacement law to determine the temperature of the "light" emitter or source of the radiation. Then using Stefan-Boltzmann's law Q = sigma T^4, suggests a downdwelling IR "flux" from the atmosphere.

Based on this, climate "scientists" claim to be able to prove the effects of "greenhouse" gasses. The question is, are they? I don't believe they are and here is why.

Do you think it is proper to use Stefan-Boltzman in the form of Q = sigma T^4 in an attempt to measure downdwelling IR from greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere? Stefan-Boltzman describes the radiant energy from a blackbody into a surrounding space at zero degrees Kelvin. The problem lies in the fact that the surface of the earth is not at zero degrees Kelvin and not only that, is warmer than the emitting source of the radiation.

Stefan-Boltzman is being misused and misinterpreted in an attempt to prove a thing that simply is not happening.

Beyond that, even if the infrared radiometer were using the correct calculations, the emission spectra from CO2 and H20, and all the other so called greenhouse gasses are line spectra, not continuous as blackbody spectra are.

I am telling you that the whole greenhouse effect is a scam. It is unscientific and fraudulent and it's damned unfortunate that so many people have been taken in by it.

 

[Trakar]

What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. /QUOTE]

Correction. What they found was that the simulations predicted such a drop. I have provided you the graphs from the 70's and the more modern era. Point out to me where there is an actual decrease in OLR as opposed to a simulated prediction of OLR.

The eyes are the worst piece of equipment to analyze such graphs, only the mathematical comparison analyses of the datasets are going to tell you the actual story of what has happened, particularly at the scale these graphs appear to be drawn at.

 

[wirebender]

The eyes are the worst piece of equipment to analyze such graphs, only the mathematical comparison analyses of the datasets are going to tell you the actual story of what has happened, particularly at the scale these graphs appear to be drawn at.

Print the graphs and overlay them then tell me that the changes claimed are so minute that they remain undetectable, then tell me that if they are so minute that they remain undetectable that they even approach the margin of error involved in such measurements. Far from being proof of AGW, they seem to represent a bullet to the head of the whole hypothesis of AGW.

 

[Trakar]

All of the open air measurements of absorption and emission spectra of the various atmospheric constituents, the measurements of surface emissions the TOA emission and impingement measurements, the night-time backradiation all of these definitively establish and quantify the basis of atmospheric ghg effects. Convection and conduction effects are appropriately integrated into all general climate studies and models but they play distinct and otherwise accounted for roles, it is the additional retained energy from ghg effects that provide the additional retained energies we see resulting in an increasingly warmer climate.

I am going to have to get to this a piece at a time due to time constraints but this being the most important, I will touch on it first. Off the bat, let me state emphatically that I am not a "math" guy. Even though I took a great deal of it in college, it never became like a "language" to me. I can do it but it takes a concentrated effort on my part.

Open aire measurements of absorption and emission spectra. I am guessing you mean the decades worth of measurements taken by agencies such as the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement climate research facility (ARM Climate Research Facility) that claim to demonstrate downdwelling radiation resulting from greenhouse gasses.

They point an infrared radiometer at the sky and make measurements. The question is what are they measuring and does it prove the greenhouse hypothesis in any manner? What is actually happening when you point that instrument at the sky?

An infrared radiometer pointed at the sky will measure the frequency of any incoming "light" and makes a calculation based on Wien's displacement law to determine the temperature of the "light" emitter or source of the radiation. Then using Stefan-Boltzmann's law Q = sigma T^4, suggests a downdwelling IR "flux" from the atmosphere.

Based on this, climate "scientists" claim to be able to prove the effects of "greenhouse" gasses. The question is, are they? I don't believe they are and here is why.

Do you think it is proper to use Stefan-Boltzman in the form of Q = sigma T^4 in an attempt to measure downdwelling IR from greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere? Stefan-Boltzman describes the radiant energy from a blackbody into a surrounding space at zero degrees Kelvin. The problem lies in the fact that the surface of the earth is not at zero degrees Kelvin and not only that, is warmer than the emitting source of the radiation.

Stefan-Boltzman is being misused and misinterpreted in an attempt to prove a thing that simply is not happening.

Beyond that, even if the infrared radiometer were using the correct calculations, the emission spectra from CO2 and H20, and all the other so called greenhouse gasses are line spectra, not continuous as blackbody spectra are.

I am telling you that the whole greenhouse effect is a scam. It is unscientific and fraudulent and it's damned unfortunate that so many people have been taken in by it.

Your understandings are not in accord with mainstream scientific understandings in general, yet alone Climate science in particular (as is fully detailed in the links provided inthe previous post). If you reject modern science that is your option but it is not a reasonable nor rational propostion. I'm a bit short of time today, myself, but will try to put together a more comprehensive response this evening. There do seem to be some scams being perpetrated by both private and governmental representatives, but as far as I can tell by the available empiric evidences, these scams have nothing to do with the viability or verifabilty of mainstream science and climate science.

 

[wirebender]

Your understandings are not in accord with mainstream scientific understandings in general, yet alone Climate science in particular (as is fully detailed in the links provided inthe previous post). If you reject modern science that is your option but it is not a reasonable nor rational propostion.

What is not rational is to accept a politically motivated hoax as actual science. What is not rational is to accept as fact a line of pseudoscience that can not offer up one shred of hard, observed evidence that proves an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate. What is not rational is to accept as proof "evidence" such as the open sky measurements you reference that suppose to prove downdwelling radiation when in reality they prove no such thing and if that sort of "science" is in accord with modern mainstream understanding, then modern mainstream understanding just dropped 100 points on my respect-o-meter.

AGW is the biggest hoax since socialism but physics and chemistry (actual science) are slowly awakening to the damage climate scientists are doing to science in general and
as a result, actual science is exposing the fraud that is modern climate science. My bet is that in 15 years, you will be hard pressed to find anyone who admits to actually being on the climate science bandwagon much the same as it was very difficult to find anyone who bought eugenics shortly after WWII when before WWII it was "consensus" science.

 

[RollingThunder]

Your understandings are not in accord with mainstream scientific understandings in general, yet alone Climate science in particular (as is fully detailed in the links provided inthe previous post). If you reject modern science that is your option but it is not a reasonable nor rational propostion.

What is not rational is to accept a politically motivated hoax as actual science. What is not rational is to accept as fact a line of pseudoscience that can not offer up one shred of hard, observed evidence that proves an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate. What is not rational is to accept as proof "evidence" such as the open sky measurements you reference that suppose to prove downdwelling radiation when in reality they prove no such thing and if that sort of "science" is in accord with modern mainstream understanding, then modern mainstream understanding just dropped 100 points on my respect-o-meter.

AGW is the biggest hoax since socialism but physics and chemistry (actual science) are slowly awakening to the damage climate scientists are doing to science in general and
as a result, actual science is exposing the fraud that is modern climate science. My bet is that in 15 years, you will be hard pressed to find anyone who admits to actually being on the climate science bandwagon much the same as it was very difficult to find anyone who bought eugenics shortly after WWII when before WWII it was "consensus" science.

ROTFLMAO.......your delusions about climate science make 'flat-earthers' look sane.

Your delusion that your beliefs are "rational" is just plain hilarious.

 

[Old Rocks]

Your understandings are not in accord with mainstream scientific understandings in general, yet alone Climate science in particular (as is fully detailed in the links provided inthe previous post). If you reject modern science that is your option but it is not a reasonable nor rational propostion.

What is not rational is to accept a politically motivated hoax as actual science. What is not rational is to accept as fact a line of pseudoscience that can not offer up one shred of hard, observed evidence that proves an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate. What is not rational is to accept as proof "evidence" such as the open sky measurements you reference that suppose to prove downdwelling radiation when in reality they prove no such thing and if that sort of "science" is in accord with modern mainstream understanding, then modern mainstream understanding just dropped 100 points on my respect-o-meter.

AGW is the biggest hoax since socialism but physics and chemistry (actual science) are slowly awakening to the damage climate scientists are doing to science in general and
as a result, actual science is exposing the fraud that is modern climate science. My bet is that in 15 years, you will be hard pressed to find anyone who admits to actually being on the climate science bandwagon much the same as it was very difficult to find anyone who bought eugenics shortly after WWII when before WWII it was "consensus" science.

So here we have another fruitcake claiming to have surperior intellect to all the people making up the Scientific Societies in the world. Another tinfoil hat candidate.

Socialism a hoax? What are National Parks but socialism? Preserving the very best of our nation for all of the citizens of this nation.

In case you have not noticed, Bentwired, both socialism and capitialism are social tools, to be used where they work the best for all the citizens. When one tool is failing in a significant way, such as capitalism in Healthcare, time to try the other tool. But there are always the fools that will insist on using a wrench when they need a screwdriver.

 

[wirebender]

ROTFLMAO.......your delusions about climate science make 'flat-earthers' look sane.

Your delusion that your beliefs are "rational" is just plain hilarious.

And yet, you remain completely unable to provide any actual observed evidence from the "science" you so fervently believe in to support the claims being made. The open air measurements referenced by Trakar are the closest thing I have seen from your side to actual observations that might support the claims but as you can see, they are not measurements of downdwelling radiation (the cornerstone of AGW) at all.

So instead of laughing like a monkey in a tree, how about you provide some actual observed evdience that provides an unequivocal link betweeen the activities of man and the changing global climate.

 

[wirebender]

So here we have another fruitcake claiming to have surperior intellect to all the people making up the Scientific Societies in the world. Another tinfoil hat candidate.

So tell me rocks, do you believe the radiometers that are giving readings based on Wien's displacement law and Stefan-Boltzmann's law are actuall measuring downdwelling radiation (the cornerstone of the hypothesis of AGW) when Stefan-Boltzmann's law clearly describes the radiant energy from a blackbody radiating into a surrounding space at zero degrees kelvin and the measurements are being taken from the surface of the planet which is warmer than the blackbody the instruments are supposed to be reading?

If your climate scientists are as brilliant as you believe, why has this issue not been addressed? Or has it been addressed and simply swept under the carpet in an effort to continue the hoax and keep the money rolling in?

Do you believe the "scientists" when they tell you that they are measuring downdwelling radiation?

Socialism a hoax? What are National Parks but socialism? Preserving the very best of our nation for all of the citizens of this nation.

Socialism as a viable governmental system rocks. And if you will, please show me a single example of a socialist government that has delivered on the promises of socialism.

 

[skookerasbil]

Why do the real scientists fudge data??

 

[wirebender]

Why do the real scientists fudge data??

The radiometer example above claiming to have measured downdwelling radiation (the cornerstone of the greenhouse effect hypothesis) isn't fudging. It is either a deliberate lie, or they simply don't understand their own equipment. In either case, it is hard, observable evidence that they are not to be trusted.

 

[RollingThunder]

Why do the real scientists fudge data??

They don't.

Why are you and wiredbent such fudge packers?

 

[RollingThunder]

The radiometer example above claiming to have measured downdwelling radiation (the cornerstone of the greenhouse effect hypothesis) isn't fudging. It is either a deliberate lie, or they simply don't understand their own equipment. In either case, it is hard, observable evidence that they are not to be trusted.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....riiiiight, wiredbent, you know better than all of those professional scientists.....I guess one of the mental illnesses that the doctors are treating you for must be 'megalomania with paranoid delusions'.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Warmers are Flat Earthers because their "Science" can only be "Believed", the laboratory is a cruel Mistress to Flat Earthers and Warmers

 

[Trakar]

All of the open air measurements of absorption and emission spectra of the various atmospheric constituents, the measurements of surface emissions the TOA emission and impingement measurements, the night-time backradiation all of these definitively establish and quantify the basis of atmospheric ghg effects. Convection and conduction effects are appropriately integrated into all general climate studies and models but they play distinct and otherwise accounted for roles, it is the additional retained energy from ghg effects that provide the additional retained energies we see resulting in an increasingly warmer climate.

I am going to have to get to this a piece at a time due to time constraints but this being the most important, I will touch on it first. Off the bat, let me state emphatically that I am not a "math" guy. Even though I took a great deal of it in college, it never became like a "language" to me. I can do it but it takes a concentrated effort on my part.

Open aire measurements of absorption and emission spectra. I am guessing you mean the decades worth of measurements taken by agencies such as the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement climate research facility (ARM Climate Research Facility) that claim to demonstrate downdwelling radiation resulting from greenhouse gasses…

Actually, I was primarily, and initially thinking about the involved military analyses and researches from the ‘30s forward which have been involve in comprehensive full-depth analyses of the Earth’s atmosphere and its properties. This data and the understandings it has provided were necessary to the production of advanced guidance, sensor/imaging and tracking systems; spysats to sidewinders, handheld thermal-imagers to IV generation FLIR systems. These same understandings and data, provide a gold mine to atmospheric researchers and climatologists, and provide one of the major sources of new support and conformational support for more direct climate researches and studies.

You are not questioning “climate science,” you are questioning extensive findings, data and understandings throughout many fields of science and scientific methodology! Did you even attempt to visit and go through any of the references presented? All of these issues of practice, procedure and general methodology are discussed in most of the individual papers and all of the general climate science textbooks I presented, I urge you to go back and brush upon on some of the basics of chemistry and physics that are really helpful in understanding what is actually happening and why.

Regardless, I am more than happy to continue to discuss these issues with you, in whatever degree of depth and detail you are comfortable with, I am, however, trying to beat another round of freak weather here in N. California! I wanted to jot off these responses from yesterday’s posts before flying out. With luck, I should be home shortly.
Stay safe!
T.S.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Your understandings are not in accord with mainstream scientific understandings in general, yet alone Climate science in particular (as is fully detailed in the links provided inthe previous post). If you reject modern science that is your option but it is not a reasonable nor rational propostion.

What is not rational is to accept a politically motivated hoax as actual science. What is not rational is to accept as fact a line of pseudoscience that can not offer up one shred of hard, observed evidence that proves an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate. What is not rational is to accept as proof "evidence" such as the open sky measurements you reference that suppose to prove downdwelling radiation when in reality they prove no such thing and if that sort of "science" is in accord with modern mainstream understanding, then modern mainstream understanding just dropped 100 points on my respect-o-meter.

AGW is the biggest hoax since socialism but physics and chemistry (actual science) are slowly awakening to the damage climate scientists are doing to science in general and
as a result, actual science is exposing the fraud that is modern climate science. My bet is that in 15 years, you will be hard pressed to find anyone who admits to actually being on the climate science bandwagon much the same as it was very difficult to find anyone who bought eugenics shortly after WWII when before WWII it was "consensus" science.

So here we have another fruitcake claiming to have surperior intellect to all the people making up the Scientific Societies in the world. Another tinfoil hat candidate.

Socialism a hoax? What are National Parks but socialism? Preserving the very best of our nation for all of the citizens of this nation.

In case you have not noticed, Bentwired, both socialism and capitialism are social tools, to be used where they work the best for all the citizens. When one tool is failing in a significant way, such as capitalism in Healthcare, time to try the other tool. But there are always the fools that will insist on using a wrench when they need a screwdriver.

Did you give up on showing us how a 60PPM increase in atmospheric CO2 drop ocean Ph by .3 degrees?