Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Don't forget the ultimate important outcome of observation, measurement, and quantification is the model. As in relativity and quantum mechanics, the model is ultimately more important than the original measurements because it has predictive powers that simple observation lacks.Actual science dealing with physical phenomena is observation, measurement, and quantification.
Wrong. Quantum mechanics predicts back scattering which has been measured.How many tests has AGW passed? None, right?
So, why don't you provide a link to the climate hoaxter site that gave you the quote and instructed you to think that it "disproves CO2 as a source of heat"? Thanks in advance.
So you are claiming that the CMB, thermal energy, is resonance radio frequencies. That is absurd and you know it. Please cite a source that says the CMB striking a warm antenna dish on earth is anything other than thermal IR.Na since you already lost that....resonance radio frequencies are not IR....but thanks for playing......either you can provide observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW or you can't....clearly you can't...why not just admit it rather than spend all this time trying to divert?
Of course, but you don't believe in the mathematical model of quantum mechanics. That is far more fundamental than an airplane wing....then aeronautical engineers apply physics to their model wings, tails ...
Thermal radiation energy moves from any object at any temperature to any other object at any other temperature. We went over that before a thousand times. You forgot?Sorry but it hasn't....an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere isn't measuring backscatter...it is measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...that is not back scatter...according to you guys backscatter is energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth...that has never been observed and measured...
In the realm of this solar system, today's understanding of quantum mechanics has never failed. You continually come out with silly statements in science, where 100% of today's physicists would disagree with you.Don't forget the ultimate important outcome of observation, measurement, and quantification is the model. As in relativity and quantum mechanics, the model is ultimately more important than the original measurements because it has predictive powers that simple observation lacks.Actual science dealing with physical phenomena is observation, measurement, and quantification.
Who can ever forget how miserably the models have failed....there is a string of failures going back decades despite constant tweaking of the models and tweaking of the data base in an attempt to alter reality to fit the models.... Oh...that's right warmers forget it on a daily basis....sometimes multiple times per hour apparently..
We went over Stefan-Boltzman law many times. You still don't understand it. As I said many times before, Thermal radiation energy moves from any object at any temperature to any other object at any other temperature. 100% of all physical scientists understand that.Wrong. Quantum mechanics predicts back scattering which has been measured.How many tests has AGW passed? None, right?
Sorry but it hasn't....an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere isn't measuring backscatter...it is measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...that is not back scatter...according to you guys backscatter is energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth...that has never been observed and measured...
I cherry picked science? How the fk can you say that when I quoted you right out of the official warmer document AR5? how is it IIIIIIIIIIII cherry picked? You're just a soar loser. you got jobbed by the IPCC and now you can't figure out how to rip that paper bag over your head. AR5 disproves CO2 as a source of heat as stated in their own document.
"As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5.
For pity's sake!
For the longest period when calculation of regional trends is sufficiently complete (1901–2012), almost the entire globe has experienced surface warming. In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability. Owing to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade). Trends for 15-year periods starting in 1995, 1996, and 1997 are 0.13 [0.02 to 0.24], 0.14 [0.03 to 0.24] and 0.07 [–0.02 to 0.18], respectively.
AR5, WG1, p 162.
So, why don't you provide a link to the climate hoaxter site that gave you the quote and instructed you to think that it "disproves CO2 as a source of heat"? Thanks in advance.
'Empirical' evidence that you never link to. LOL. All that education, and you don't know how to find a site that would demonstrate your 'empirical' evidence. Amazing.The spectrum below is for the real Sun's output and shows the various absorbers.
Solar spectrum (A) above the atmosphere, (B) near the Earth's surface and (C) the spectrum detectable by the eye, The x-axis is wavelength in microns. The difference between A and B represents the albedo; the fraction of the incoming solar radiation that is reflected to space. No spectrum of that seems to be available, but I'm still trying to find one. According to the K/T diagram the radiation absorbed by the atmosphere amounts to 67 W/m2 with only 10 W/m2 of that absorbed by the stratosphere.
Carbon Dioxide Infrared Spectrum
There are several transitions of the CO2 molecule that contribute to its IR spectrum and which are relevant to the understanding of its role in global warming. For an apparently simple triatomic molecule its IR spectrum is quite complex. The relevant transitions are shown in Figure 1.
Barrett Bellamy Climate - Greenhouse gas spectra
Much more at this site. Yes, Virginia, there are GHGs and they impact the temperature of the atmosphere and oceans, as we are finding out right now.
I love it... You equate potential with 'does' when empirical evidence shows it does not.
I posted the real world data in post 4 of this thread showing the premise you gave as false.. Yet you ignore it, why?
Your premise must have results that are observable and defineable in the real world.. Models are fantasy land and not empirical evidence of any kind.
Na since you already lost that....resonance radio frequencies are not IR....but thanks for playing......either you can provide observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW or you can't....clearly you can't...why not just admit it rather than spend all this time trying to divert?
Already been through this....review at .... http://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.7749.pdf....full explanation for you of how CMB is detected via resonance frequency....
Not going to argue that point with you any further....if you want to detect the actual CMB signal...you must cool your receiver to about 3K
So you are claiming that the CMB, thermal energy, is resonance radio frequencies. That is absurd and you know it. Please cite a source that says the CMB striking a warm antenna dish on earth is anything other than thermal IR.
Nope....CMB is IR but it can be detected via resonance frequencies in the neighborhood of 150GHz....again, refer to the link above....full explanation...sorry this is so difficult for you....might it be that you aren't as smart as you think you are?
Of course, but you don't believe in the mathematical model of quantum mechanics. That is far more fundamental than an airplane wing....then aeronautical engineers apply physics to their model wings, tails ...
Thermal radiation energy moves from any object at any temperature to any other object at any other temperature. We went over that before a thousand times. You forgot?Sorry but it hasn't....an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere isn't measuring backscatter...it is measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...that is not back scatter...according to you guys backscatter is energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth...that has never been observed and measured...
In the realm of this solar system, today's understanding of quantum mechanics has never failed. You continually come out with silly statements in science, where 100% of today's physicists would disagree with you.Don't forget the ultimate important outcome of observation, measurement, and quantification is the model. As in relativity and quantum mechanics, the model is ultimately more important than the original measurements because it has predictive powers that simple observation lacks.Actual science dealing with physical phenomena is observation, measurement, and quantification.
Who can ever forget how miserably the models have failed....there is a string of failures going back decades despite constant tweaking of the models and tweaking of the data base in an attempt to alter reality to fit the models.... Oh...that's right warmers forget it on a daily basis....sometimes multiple times per hour apparently..
We went over Stefan-Boltzman law many times. You still don't understand it. As I said many times before, Thermal radiation energy moves from any object at any temperature to any other object at any other temperature. 100% of all physical scientists understand that.Wrong. Quantum mechanics predicts back scattering which has been measured.How many tests has AGW passed? None, right?
Sorry but it hasn't....an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere isn't measuring backscatter...it is measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...that is not back scatter...according to you guys backscatter is energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth...that has never been observed and measured...
You missed my point. It is so simple. The reflecting dish is never cooled and is hundreds of degrees warmer than the source. The CMB must hit a warmer reflecting dish, otherwise it can't get to a detector of any sort.Already been through this....review at .... http://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.7749.pdf ....full explanation for you of how CMB is detected via resonance frequency....
Not going to argue that point with you any further....if you want to detect the actual CMB signal...you must cool your receiver to about 3K
Nope....CMB is IR but it can be detected via resonance frequencies in the neighborhood of 150GHz....again, refer to the link above....full explanation...sorry this is so difficult for you....might it be that you aren't as smart as you think you are?
The CMB demonstrates that cold radiation can strike a warm (radio antenna) object. Back-scatter is a fundamental premise of keeping the earth warm. If you reject back-scatter, you disagree with the physics of 100 years ago. And you disagree with 100% of all physical scientists today. And you have no way to explain how the earth can stay in radiative equilibrium.When the model fails....it is due to faulty understanding/application of the physics involved whether it is for an aircraft wing, or a climate model...Climate models have been failing spectacularly since their first use...cause?....faulty understanding/application of atmospheric physics.
What you mean is that you don't understand the science involved, and you disagree with every scientist. So you have no argument to support your OP.energy moving from cool to warm has never been measured at ambient temperature...believe if you like, but I will stick with every observation ever made
That is totally untrue. That was known decades ago. If you really think it's ad hoc cite a source.Quantum physics can't even explain the composition of the electron cloud around a hydrogen atom without an ad hoc fix....
...clearly the QM isn't helping climate science build a climate model that works.
You missed my point. It is so simple. The reflecting dish is never cooled and is hundreds of degrees warmer than the source. The CMB must hit a warmer reflecting dish, otherwise it can't get to a detector of any sort.
The CMB demonstrates that cold radiation can strike a warm (radio antenna) object. Back-scatter is a fundamental premise of keeping the earth warm. If you reject back-scatter, you disagree with the physics of 100 years ago. And you disagree with 100% of all physical scientists today. And you have no way to explain how the earth can stay in radiative equilibrium.
What you mean is that you don't understand the science involved, and you disagree with every scientist. So you have no argument to support your OP.energy moving from cool to warm has never been measured at ambient temperature...believe if you like, but I will stick with every observation ever made
You are making up physics again.What you seem to keep forgetting is that SB states that radiation moves form any object at any temperature in a vacuum...is the atmosphere a vacuum?
