how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[orogenicman]

We can change the debate to semantics if you want to.

AGW is caused by a deficit in outgoing, in the balance of incoming and outgoing radiant energy relative to earth. More energy in than out, the surplus adds to earth's energy until it's temperature rises enough to overpower whatever is restricting energy from going out, and balance is restored.

So simple. So obvious.

The only problem with your statement is that the amount of outgoing LW is increasing with the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, not decreasing as your hypothesis demands.

Outgoing longwave radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) is the energy leaving the earth as infrared radiation at low energy. OLR is a critical component of the Earth’s radiation budget and represents the total radiation going to space emitted by the atmosphere.[1] Earth's radiation balance is very closely achieved since the OLR very nearly equals the Shortwave Absorbed Radiation received at high energy from the sun. Thus, the first law of thermodynamics (energy conservation) is satisfied and the Earth's average temperature is very nearly stable. The OLR is affected by clouds and dust in the atmosphere, which tend to reduce it below clear sky values. Greenhouse gases, such as methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), water vapor (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2), absorb certain wavelengths of OLR adding heat to the atmosphere, which in turn causes the atmosphere to emit more radiation. Some of this radiation is directed back towards the Earth, increasing the average temperature of the Earth's surface. Therefore, an increase in the concentration of a greenhouse gas would contribute to global warming by increasing the amount of radiation that is absorbed and emitted by these atmospheric constituents.

The OLR is dependent on the temperature of the radiating body. It is affected by the Earth's skin temperature, skin surface emissivity, atmospheric temperature, water vapor profile, and cloud cover.[1]

 

[Abraham3]

Have you seen this correlation between OLR and the ENSO index?

http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/02/07/ceres-airs-outgoing-longwave-radiation-el-nino/

Addditionally, this explanatory text from NOAA's NCDC throws a few more factors into the mix:

Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) data at the top of the atmosphere are observed from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) instrument aboard the NOAA polar orbiting spacecraft. Data are centered across equatorial areas from 160°E to 160°W longitude. The raw data are converted into a standardized anomaly index. Negative (Positive) OLR are indicative of enhanced (suppressed) convection and hence more (less) cloud coverage typical of El Niño (La Niña) episodes. More (Less) convective activity in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific implies higher (lower), colder (warmer) cloud tops, which emit much less (more) infrared radiation into space.

Transliterated:

Negative OLR are indicative of enhanced convection and hence more cloud coverage typical of El Niño episodes. More convective activity in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific implies higher, colder cloud tops, which emit much less infrared radiation into space.

Positive OLR are indicative of suppressed convection and hence less cloud coverage typical of La Niña episodes. Less convective activity in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific implies lower, warmer cloud tops, which emit much more infrared radiation into space.

I think taking the OLR as a refutation of the Greenhouse Effect is an unsupportable oversimplification. I think the primary factor controlling OLR is ENSO. The ENSO pseudo-cycle has undergone significant alteration since 1998. The ENSO state would affect the controlling factors that Orogenicman lists at the end of his post.

 

[orogenicman]

Polar ice packs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Records of Arctic Sea ice from the United Kingdom’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research go back to the turn of the 20th century, although the quality of the data before 1950 is debatable. Still, these records show a persistent decline in Arctic Sea ice over the last 50 years.[3]

Reliable measurements of sea ice edge begin within the satellite era. From the late 1970s, the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) on Seasat (1978) and Nimbus 7 (1978–87) satellites provided information that was independent of solar illumination or meteorological conditions. The frequency and accuracy of passive microwave measurements improved with the launch of the DMSP F8 Special Sensor Microwave/Imager SSMI in 1987. Both the sea ice area and extent are estimated, with the latter being larger, as it is defined as the area of ocean with at least 15% sea ice.

A modeling study of the 52-year period from 1948 to 1999 found a statistically significant trend in Arctic ice volume of −3% per decade; splitting this into wind-forced and temperature forced components shows it to be essentially all caused by the temperature forcing. A computer-based, time-resolved calculation of sea ice volume, fitted to various measurements, revealed that monitoring the ice volume is much more significant for evaluating sea ice loss than pure area considerations.[4]

The trends from 1979 to 2002 have been a statistically significant Arctic decrease and an Antarctic increase that is probably not significant, depending exactly on which time period is used. The Arctic trends of −2.5% ± 0.9% per decade; or about 3% per decade.[5] Climate models simulated this trend in 2002,[6] and attributed it to anthropogenic forcing.

The September minimum ice extent trend for 1979–2011 declined by 12.0% per decade.[7]

In 2007 the ice melt accelerated. The minimum extent fell by more than a million square kilometers, the biggest decline ever, to 4,140,000 km2 (1,600,000 sq mi), then by far the lowest ever. New research shows the Arctic Sea ice to be melting faster than predicted by any of the 18 computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in preparing its 2007 assessments.[8] In 2012, a new record low of about 3,500,000 km2 (1,400,000 sq mi) was reached.[9][10]

While the Northern Hemisphere sea ice reached new record lows, on September 12, 2007 the Southern Hemisphere sea ice area reached 15,910,000 km2 (6,143,000 sq mi), close to the maximum recorded of 16,020,000 km2 (6,185,000 sq mi).[11]

The Antarctic increase is 0.8% per decade[12] although this depends on the period being considered. Vinnikov et al.[13] find the NH reduction to be statistically significant but the SH trend is not.

In the overall mass balance, the volume of sea ice depends on the thickness of the ice as well as the areal extent. While the satellite era has enabled better measurement of trends in areal extent, accurate ice thickness measurements remain a challenge. "Nonetheless, the extreme loss of this summer’s sea ice cover and the slow onset of freeze-up portends lower than normal ice extent throughout autumn and winter, and the ice that grows back is likely to be fairly thin".[3]

As more and more of the sea ice is thinner first-year ice the greater effect storms have on its stability with turbulence resulting from major extratropical cyclones resulting in extensive fractures of sea ice.[14]

ANYONE, and I mean anyone, who claims to be a scientist and then trots out a wiki link, is clearly not.

Well, I could post peer reviewed articles, but you have to have a subscription to read it, and clearly you don't have subscriptions to any peer reviewed journals. Moreover, the fact that you have more trouble with my using Wikipedia than you do the contents of the Wikipedia article tells me all I need to know about your level of understanding. And finally, the article has a bibliography to peer reviewed papers, so if you have a problem with the article, you can always read the contents of those cited articles and then submit your own corrections. I encourage you to do so.

 

[RollingThunder]

Ahhhhh yes. The idiots ever popular appeal to the models! How good are these models anyway? Well, according to the Institute for Energy Research at Harvard, they are......well, I'll be kind....they're shit. Well OK they didn't use that word because they are polite....but that's basically what they said!

Current Crop of Computer Models “Close to Useless”

It is this second class of models, the economic/climate hybrids called Integrated Assessment Models, that Pindyck discusses. Pindyck’s paper is titled, “Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?” Here is his shocking answer, contained in the abstract:

Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models’ descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading. [Bold added.]

Institute for Energy Research | Scathing MIT Paper Blasts Obama?s Climate Models

How many different places are you going to go attempting to badmouth climate models with a critique of a completely different critter? It amazes me that anyone can be that blatantly dishonest. You KNOW that Pin-Dick isn't talking about climate models and you KNOW that his comments do not apply where you are pretending to apply them. You are knowingly conveying a falsehood. How can you do that? Are you conscience-less? Incredible.

Really man, just

So....it seems that when retards like the walleyedidiot are caught lying, their only response is helpless laughter. How ludicrous. Of course, in their little cult of reality denial, it's either that or come back and double down on the lies, so....

 

[flacaltenn]

Learn to comprehend what you read. The idiot said that nothing comes into the system but radiant energy and nothing goes out but radiant energy when asked if he believed the earth was a closed system. Look up closed system and try to comprehend how stupid his response was. Open and closed doesn't just refer to energy exchange.

Hahahaha. Some of you guys are idiots for arguing over insignificant details while ignoring main idea.

Oh....and mamooth is correct. The second law is just a statistical prediction.

Now Ian, quit showing your hole card.. You're supposed to be a luke-warmwer remember...

And nomamooth is not correct. And neither are you...

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.
The second law is an empirically validated postulate of thermodynamics, but it can be understood and explained using the underlying quantum statistical mechanics, together with the assumption of low-entropy initial conditions in the distant past (possibly at the beginning of the universe). In the language of statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of microscopic configurations corresponding to a macroscopic state. Because equilibrium corresponds to a vastly greater number of microscopic configurations than any non-equilibrium state, it has the maximum entropy, and the second law follows because random chance alone practically guarantees that the system will evolve toward equilibrium.
It is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential decrease in an isolated non-gravitational physical system, leading eventually to a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

It's a "empirically validated postulate" know what that means? It means it is assumed fact or true due to empirical evidence or observation. The fact it can be explained using QM or statistical means, does not mean it is strictly or even loosely a statistical prediction..

You're calling QM fact again Ian... It's not a fact, it's an attempt to explain the so far unexplainable.

Can you prove that shroedinger's cat was both dead and alive until he opened the box? Of course not..Get a grip, you are convinced a statistical possibility is fact..

Hey Genius.. Two BBody radiators in a vacuum within 0.01degC of each other.. Only thermal exchange is due to EM thermal radiation.. You "glance" at the photon count every millisec for 1 nanosecond.. Will you EVER see "heat going the wrong way" ????

Of course you will..... Ian and Mamooth were quite right. THe thermal laws AS THEY APPLIED TO RADIATIVE THERMAL EXCHANGES are obeyed "in the limit" of long-term observation.. Otherwise, it is and can be a crap shoot..

 

[Abraham3]

I'd like to see link to work showing that the Greenhouse Effect doesn't work on other planets.

 

[orogenicman]

I'd like to see link to work showing that the Greenhouse Effect doesn't work on other planets.

You know, it always amuses me when I see deniers criticize NASA scientists working on Earth systems, when the SAME NASA uses many of the same scientists, and nearly identical instrumentation to study other planets in our solar system, and yet very rarely do we hear criticism of those results. Even more amusing is that virtually none of the deniers have done any original work, much less collected and compiled their own databases. I'm still waiting for one of them to explain to me why they would take the word of a massage therapist over an accredited, published scientist. It really does have all the appearance of the tobacco health argument of previous decades, or the creationism/evolution argument of recent years. Interestingly, some of the same players are involved in all of these arguments. Gee, I wonder why that is?

 

[flacaltenn]

IanC. Wasn't it you who encouraged us not to respond to that troll?

It's gotten personal on a level where some posters can't be ignored. Because their claims become part of the "urban legends" of AGW debate.
It's like being Jewish and trying to ignore an ardent denier of the Holocaust..

Now don't you try to psychoanalyze that and boomerang it back at me. You won't score any direct hits with that ....

I'll give you cred on that if I ever see your side trying to reign in some of YOUR off-the-chart wingers..

 

[orogenicman]

IanC. Wasn't it you who encouraged us not to respond to that troll?

It's gotten personal on a level where some posters can't be ignored. Because their claims become part of the "urban legends" of AGW debate.
It's like being Jewish and trying to ignore an ardent denier of the Holocaust..

Now don't you try to psychoanalyze that and boomerang it back at me. You won't score any direct hits with that ....

I'll give you cred on that if I ever see your side trying to reign in some of YOUR off-the-chart wingers..

Not necessary. I know how to handle people like him. The ignore feature works just fine.

 

[flacaltenn]

We can change the debate to semantics if you want to.

AGW is caused by a deficit in outgoing, in the balance of incoming and outgoing radiant energy relative to earth. More energy in than out, the surplus adds to earth's energy until it's temperature rises enough to overpower whatever is restricting energy from going out, and balance is restored.

So simple. So obvious.

The only problem with your statement is that the amount of outgoing LW is increasing with the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, not decreasing as your hypothesis demands.

There may be a stabilizing feedback with regards to OLR.. As shown in the chart below, the behaviour of CERTAIN FREQ BANDS of IR OLR shows an interesting relationship to CO2 concentrations.. That's the type of plot that would indicate a NEGATIVE feedback on Temperature. On the other hand --- the line fit seems a bit "iffy" to me..

HOWEVER -- you have to be careful WHAT MEASUREMENT of OLR you pick up to make that argument. Since LongWave INCLUDES some of the freq. bands that ARE NOT generated by surface heating. The sun pumps some longwave INTO the system in the same bands -- and SOME of that gets reflected as OLR.

So you need to know that what you are looking at is limited to the frequencies that CAN be radiated from surface to TOAtmos.

I'm interested.. Do you know what frequencies were measured in that graph of yours?? The chart below was done for 10 to 12.5 um emissions.

 

[gslack]

Hahahaha. Some of you guys are idiots for arguing over insignificant details while ignoring main idea.

Oh....and mamooth is correct. The second law is just a statistical prediction.

Now Ian, quit showing your hole card.. You're supposed to be a luke-warmwer remember...

And nomamooth is not correct. And neither are you...

Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.
The second law is an empirically validated postulate of thermodynamics, but it can be understood and explained using the underlying quantum statistical mechanics, together with the assumption of low-entropy initial conditions in the distant past (possibly at the beginning of the universe). In the language of statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of microscopic configurations corresponding to a macroscopic state. Because equilibrium corresponds to a vastly greater number of microscopic configurations than any non-equilibrium state, it has the maximum entropy, and the second law follows because random chance alone practically guarantees that the system will evolve toward equilibrium.
It is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential decrease in an isolated non-gravitational physical system, leading eventually to a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

It's a "empirically validated postulate" know what that means? It means it is assumed fact or true due to empirical evidence or observation. The fact it can be explained using QM or statistical means, does not mean it is strictly or even loosely a statistical prediction..

You're calling QM fact again Ian... It's not a fact, it's an attempt to explain the so far unexplainable.

Can you prove that shroedinger's cat was both dead and alive until he opened the box? Of course not..Get a grip, you are convinced a statistical possibility is fact..

Gslack- your knowledge and understanding of sciencre is nothing but a caricature. As is mine but at least I have some of the basics.

If you want to wait around for a 'better' explanation than quantum statistics, that is your right. I hope you won't be disappointed when it turns out to be just a more complex solution based on the same principles.

LOL, a fine bit of song and dance... No legitimate argument? No flaw to point out? Nothing to show I am in fact wrong? Yep... Just you doing the usual, call me ignorant because you can't defend your position...

I'm so tired of bullshit experts, claiming such high and lofty intellect and education, yet cannot think, cannot dfend their position, cannot show either logically or generally that they can understand anything beyond an equation..

You aren't a scientist Ian, you think only in terms of numbers, with no real grasp of what they mean in the real world.

Unfamiliar with Schroedinger's cat I see... Not surprised... You don't seem to be familiar with anything beyond a number...

Yes Ian you are a genius because you call theory fact and dismiss everyone who doesn't as being ignorant...You keep this pretense up, despite running away from virtually every debate once it gets uncomfortable for you...

Tell ya what Ian you start calling out the really ignorant warmer posters on here, and maybe I will lighten up. Next time PMZ or one of the other morons says something unscientific, or completely screws up a theory or law, you get on them for it instead of leaving it for me or SSD, or Westwall, or hell anybody else, and maybe I can learn to give you a bit of respect...

Until you can man up and actually post to real idiots, with the same fervor you post to me, you get nothing but my disdain... I can't abide a coward, and I certainly don't tolerate passive-agressive punks, who will kiss the ass of anybody no matter how ignorant just because it suits their needs at the time...

When you man-up, let me know..

 

[SSDD]

Hey Genius.. Two BBody radiators in a vacuum within 0.01degC of each other.. Only thermal exchange is due to EM thermal radiation.. You "glance" at the photon count every millisec for 1 nanosecond.. Will you EVER see "heat going the wrong way" ????

Of course you will..... Ian and Mamooth were quite right. THe thermal laws AS THEY APPLIED TO RADIATIVE THERMAL EXCHANGES are obeyed "in the limit" of long-term observation.. Otherwise, it is and can be a crap shoot..

Actually, you won't and it has never once, in the history of the universe being observed.

Unfortunate that you have such a belief in QM as it is a long way from actually explaining anything. Any line of thought that can't even explain the electron cloud around a hydrogen atom without an ad hoc "fix" is not a line of thought one should place much trust in.

 

[SSDD]

I'd like to see link to work showing that the Greenhouse Effect doesn't work on other planets.

Actually, the atmospheric thermal effect works on other planets. The greenhouse effect calculations used to derive the the temperature here don't derive accurate temperatures anywhere else. Try and phrase your statements accurately to reflect the topic of discussion.

Here is a place to start.

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/unified_theory_of_climate_poster_nikolov_zeller.pdf

http://www.climatethoughts.org/WCRP_Poster_Nikolov_Zeller.pdf

 

[SSDD]

We can change the debate to semantics if you want to.

AGW is caused by a deficit in outgoing, in the balance of incoming and outgoing radiant energy relative to earth. More energy in than out, the surplus adds to earth's energy until it's temperature rises enough to overpower whatever is restricting energy from going out, and balance is restored.

So simple. So obvious.

The only problem with your statement is that the amount of outgoing LW is increasing with the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, not decreasing as your hypothesis demands.

There may be a stabilizing feedback with regards to OLR.. As shown in the chart below, the behaviour of CERTAIN FREQ BANDS of IR OLR shows an interesting relationship to CO2 concentrations.. That's the type of plot that would indicate a NEGATIVE feedback on Temperature. On the other hand --- the line fit seems a bit "iffy" to me..

HOWEVER -- you have to be careful WHAT MEASUREMENT of OLR you pick up to make that argument. Since LongWave INCLUDES some of the freq. bands that ARE NOT generated by surface heating. The sun pumps some longwave INTO the system in the same bands -- and SOME of that gets reflected as OLR.

So you need to know that what you are looking at is limited to the frequencies that CAN be radiated from surface to TOAtmos.

I'm interested.. Do you know what frequencies were measured in that graph of yours?? The chart below was done for 10 to 12.5 um emissions.

Since the sun has been in a quiet phase during a time of obvious increase in OLR, we can be pretty sure that the increase in OLR is not due to increased incoming solar energy. And then there is the GLARING fact that the hot spot as predicted and DEMANDED by the greenhouse hypothesis has never shown up. That, in and of itself is enough to discredit the hypothesis in the mind of any honest observer.

 

[SSDD]

Tell ya what Ian you start calling out the really ignorant warmer posters on here, and maybe I will lighten up. Next time PMZ or one of the other morons says something unscientific, or completely screws up a theory or law, you get on them for it instead of leaving it for me or SSD, or Westwall, or hell anybody else, and maybe I can learn to give you a bit of respect...

Until you can man up and actually post to real idiots, with the same fervor you post to me, you get nothing but my disdain... I can't abide a coward, and I certainly don't tolerate passive-agressive punks, who will kiss the ass of anybody no matter how ignorant just because it suits their needs at the time...

When you man-up, let me know..

True. I have been wondering if maybe Ian thinks that statistics is the fundamental mechanism that drives energy exchanges like mamooth as opposed to a means of attempting to explain that fundamental mechanism and what it will cause. I mean, that was one of the stupidest comments ever made here and Ian didn't issue a peep. He has gotten in as tight as ticks with that bunch of genuine wackos and it does make one wonder.

Maybe he views himself as Buzz Lightyear and the bunch of wackos are those little green guys going ooooooooooo aaaahhhhhhhaaaaaaaa all around him.

 

[Abraham3]

Tell ya what Ian you start calling out the really ignorant warmer posters on here, and maybe I will lighten up. Next time PMZ or one of the other morons says something unscientific, or completely screws up a theory or law, you get on them for it instead of leaving it for me or SSD, or Westwall, or hell anybody else, and maybe I can learn to give you a bit of respect...

Until you can man up and actually post to real idiots, with the same fervor you post to me, you get nothing but my disdain... I can't abide a coward, and I certainly don't tolerate passive-agressive punks, who will kiss the ass of anybody no matter how ignorant just because it suits their needs at the time...

When you man-up, let me know..

True. I have been wondering if maybe Ian thinks that statistics is the fundamental mechanism that drives energy exchanges like mamooth as opposed to a means of attempting to explain that fundamental mechanism and what it will cause. I mean, that was one of the stupidest comments ever made here and Ian didn't issue a peep. He has gotten in as tight as ticks with that bunch of genuine wackos and it does make one wonder.

Maybe he views himself as Buzz Lightyear and the bunch of wackos are those little green guys going ooooooooooo aaaahhhhhhhaaaaaaaa all around him.

Ooooo... MORE dissension in the ranks. The beast that eats its young.

Go Slack Go Slack Go Slack

 

[SSDD]

Tell ya what Ian you start calling out the really ignorant warmer posters on here, and maybe I will lighten up. Next time PMZ or one of the other morons says something unscientific, or completely screws up a theory or law, you get on them for it instead of leaving it for me or SSD, or Westwall, or hell anybody else, and maybe I can learn to give you a bit of respect...

Until you can man up and actually post to real idiots, with the same fervor you post to me, you get nothing but my disdain... I can't abide a coward, and I certainly don't tolerate passive-agressive punks, who will kiss the ass of anybody no matter how ignorant just because it suits their needs at the time...

When you man-up, let me know..

True. I have been wondering if maybe Ian thinks that statistics is the fundamental mechanism that drives energy exchanges like mamooth as opposed to a means of attempting to explain that fundamental mechanism and what it will cause. I mean, that was one of the stupidest comments ever made here and Ian didn't issue a peep. He has gotten in as tight as ticks with that bunch of genuine wackos and it does make one wonder.

Maybe he views himself as Buzz Lightyear and the bunch of wackos are those little green guys going ooooooooooo aaaahhhhhhhaaaaaaaa all around him.

Ooooo... MORE dissension in the ranks. The beast that eats its young.

Go Slack Go Slack Go Slack

Hallucinations too?

 

[orogenicman]

The only problem with your statement is that the amount of outgoing LW is increasing with the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, not decreasing as your hypothesis demands.

There may be a stabilizing feedback with regards to OLR.. As shown in the chart below, the behaviour of CERTAIN FREQ BANDS of IR OLR shows an interesting relationship to CO2 concentrations.. That's the type of plot that would indicate a NEGATIVE feedback on Temperature. On the other hand --- the line fit seems a bit "iffy" to me..

HOWEVER -- you have to be careful WHAT MEASUREMENT of OLR you pick up to make that argument. Since LongWave INCLUDES some of the freq. bands that ARE NOT generated by surface heating. The sun pumps some longwave INTO the system in the same bands -- and SOME of that gets reflected as OLR.

So you need to know that what you are looking at is limited to the frequencies that CAN be radiated from surface to TOAtmos.

I'm interested.. Do you know what frequencies were measured in that graph of yours?? The chart below was done for 10 to 12.5 um emissions.

Since the sun has been in a quiet phase during a time of obvious increase in OLR, we can be pretty sure that the increase in OLR is not due to increased incoming solar energy. And then there is the GLARING fact that the hot spot as predicted and DEMANDED by the greenhouse hypothesis has never shown up. That, in and of itself is enough to discredit the hypothesis in the mind of any honest observer.

I guess you missed the memo. The sun is currently at solar maximum. That said, I agree that the sun is not significantly increasing the OLR. What "hotspot" are you referring to?

 

[SSDD]

I guess you missed the memo. The sun is currently at solar maximum. That said, I agree that the sun is not significantly increasing the OLR. What "hotspot" are you referring to?

No, I got the memo. One of the weakest maximums since the little ice age. Weaker in fact that some of the solar minimums since then. Are you able to have an honest discussion or are you congenitally dishonest and simply unable to help yourself?....or perhaps so desperate to present the appearance of scoring a point that sacrificing your character seems a small price to pay??

 

[gslack]

Tell ya what Ian you start calling out the really ignorant warmer posters on here, and maybe I will lighten up. Next time PMZ or one of the other morons says something unscientific, or completely screws up a theory or law, you get on them for it instead of leaving it for me or SSD, or Westwall, or hell anybody else, and maybe I can learn to give you a bit of respect...

Until you can man up and actually post to real idiots, with the same fervor you post to me, you get nothing but my disdain... I can't abide a coward, and I certainly don't tolerate passive-agressive punks, who will kiss the ass of anybody no matter how ignorant just because it suits their needs at the time...

When you man-up, let me know..

True. I have been wondering if maybe Ian thinks that statistics is the fundamental mechanism that drives energy exchanges like mamooth as opposed to a means of attempting to explain that fundamental mechanism and what it will cause. I mean, that was one of the stupidest comments ever made here and Ian didn't issue a peep. He has gotten in as tight as ticks with that bunch of genuine wackos and it does make one wonder.

Maybe he views himself as Buzz Lightyear and the bunch of wackos are those little green guys going ooooooooooo aaaahhhhhhhaaaaaaaa all around him.

Ooooo... MORE dissension in the ranks. The beast that eats its young.

Go Slack Go Slack Go Slack

what dissension? what ranks?

Ian never was a anything but a warmer. I stated as much for a long while now. He's a warmer, but a habitual save-ass as well, so he covers his bets. He wants a backdoor to take if the theory goes even further south... Now he has just lost the ability to hide it..