In Support of the A in AGW

[SSDD]

Do you really believe that our description of quantum mechanics in 100 years, or 200 years will bear any resemblance to the place holding stories we tell today in an attempt to explain what we, at this point, aren't even close to understanding? Do you think it will even be as close to the modern explanation as the aether hypothesis was?

Quantum electrodynamics accuracy is far more than enough to explain back scatter and the green house effect. It will be valid and good enough in that realm forever.

So why no measurements of back scatter at ambient temperature...you claim that it happens at ambient temperature, 24/7..... why no observation of it in the history of the universe? Are you claiming that it is not an observable , measurable, quantifiable phenomenon? You can sure measure radiation moving from the atmosphere to a cooler instrument on the ground...of course energy moving from warm to cool is predicted by the laws of physics....energy moving from cool to warm however....not so much...

Model output is not observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from the observable, measurable, quantifiable world....why pretend that it is?

 

[Wuwei]

I haven't made an argument on this thread.

Oh yes you have. You have argued against all the evidence that came out challenging your OP. And you continue to make arguments. Against science.

Which evidence that has been presented on this thread, or any other thread do you think actually supports the A in AGW...

You just made my case. Crick and Rock supplied evidence and you deny the science behind it.

 

[Wuwei]

Model output is not observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from the observable, measurable, quantifiable world....why pretend that it is?

The science behind backscatter has a solid foundation and is believed by 100% of all physicists whether they are warmers or deniers. In fact the science has been indisputable for well over one hundred years.

If you care to question the science, that is your problem not mine.

 

[jc456]

I haven't made an argument on this thread.

Oh yes you have. You have argued against all the evidence that came out challenging your OP. And you continue to make arguments. Against science.

Which evidence that has been presented on this thread, or any other thread do you think actually supports the A in AGW...

You just made my case. Crick and Rock supplied evidence and you deny the science behind it.

so the point you missed was it wasn't evidence. They posted a response with nothing of evidence in it. So oops!

 

[jc456]

Model output is not observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from the observable, measurable, quantifiable world....why pretend that it is?

The science behind backscatter has a solid foundation and is believed by 100% of all physicists whether they are warmers or deniers. In fact the science has been indisputable for well over one hundred years.

If you care to question the science, that is your problem not mine.

Well it is your problem cause you can't prove it. It's also their problem cause they can't prove it. less LWIR does not mean more warming. show me a physicist that would agree with that.

 

[SSDD]

I haven't made an argument on this thread.

Oh yes you have. You have argued against all the evidence that came out challenging your OP. And you continue to make arguments. Against science.

Which evidence that has been presented on this thread, or any other thread do you think actually supports the A in AGW...

You just made my case. Crick and Rock supplied evidence and you deny the science behind it.

Crick supplied evidence that if you cool your instrument down to -80 you can measure incoming radiation from the atmosphere...how do you suppose that supports the A in AGW? Should be interesting.

Rocks provided evidence that so called greenhouse gasses absorb while leaving out the fact that they also emit what they absorb....that doesn't even begin to prove that absorption and emission equals warming, much less that man is responsible for climate change...but by all means, do describe how you think that the fact that so called greenhouse gasses absorb and emit supports the A in AGW...again...it is sure to be interesting.

 

[SSDD]

Model output is not observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from the observable, measurable, quantifiable world....why pretend that it is?

The science behind backscatter has a solid foundation and is believed by 100% of all physicists whether they are warmers or deniers. In fact the science has been indisputable for well over one hundred years.

So you say and yet, there exist no measurements taken at ambient temperature....and without actual measurements of this claimed physical phenomenon, the discussion is certainly not settled...

If you care to question the science, that is your problem not mine.

Actual science dealing with physical phenomena is observation, measurement, and quantification....model output is not a suitable substitute for actual observation and measurement when you are talking about physical phenomena....sorry that you think it is....it does explain why you are a believer though...and why you believe there is actual observed, measured, quantified data when, in fact, none exists.

 

[SSDD]

Model output is not observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from the observable, measurable, quantifiable world....why pretend that it is?

The science behind backscatter has a solid foundation and is believed by 100% of all physicists whether they are warmers or deniers. In fact the science has been indisputable for well over one hundred years.

If you care to question the science, that is your problem not mine.

Well it is your problem cause you can't prove it. It's also their problem cause they can't prove it. less LWIR does not mean more warming. show me a physicist that would agree with that.

They have faith....nothing real or tangible for the f'ing atmosphere for pete's sake...but they have faith in spades....

 

[Crick]

There's tons. You've been shown it repeatedly. You continue to lie at every turn and refuse to accept what the world's scientists - of every stripe - recognize as evidence supporting AGW. Everyone here knows that. There simply is no question of the validity of AGW any more. The only people who actually believe there is no evidence are the folks in tin hats worried about contrails and satellites. You have become the fringe of the fringe.

And yet, you can't produce any of it...thanks...

I can and have produced reams of it. You have seen it. You have read it. You lie about it. Your choice.

Not the first bit crick...I suppose you might believe that you have, but then that's why you have been taken in by the scam....measurements of the emission of various gasses made with instruments cooled to temperatures far below that of the atmosphere are evidence of nothing other than that you can measure emitted radiation from a thing if you cool your receiving instrument to a temperature lower than that of the emitter....hardly evidence supporting the A in AGW...and rocks evidence that greenhouse gasses absorb was only half the evidence as he failed to mention that they also emit what they absorb and that does not even begin to prove that absorption and emission equals warming...much less support the A in AGW...

As I said, my original premise is correct and you have never posted a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the A in AGW...none of you have.

You're stupid and you lie. There is no point in talking to you about anything. Buh-Bye.

 

[Wuwei]

You can sure measure radiation moving from the atmosphere to a cooler instrument on the ground...of course energy moving from warm to cool is predicted by the laws of physics....energy moving from cool to warm however....not so much.

Do we have to go through the fact again that thermal radiation from the cold cosmic microwave background can strike a warm parabolic dish on earth hundreds of degrees warmer.

Model output is not observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from the observable, measurable, quantifiable world....why pretend that it is?

The entire body of physics understanding is in mathematical models. If you don't believe in those models, you don't believe in anything that has to do with science. Period.

 

[Wuwei]

Crick supplied evidence that if you cool your instrument down to -80 you can measure incoming radiation from the atmosphere...how do you suppose that supports the A in AGW? Should be interesting.

So what if it's cooled down. Back scatter was measured. Don't forget the CMB also shows radiation can go from warm objects to cooler ones.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You can sure measure radiation moving from the atmosphere to a cooler instrument on the ground...of course energy moving from warm to cool is predicted by the laws of physics....energy moving from cool to warm however....not so much.

Do we have to go through the fact again that thermal radiation from the cold cosmic microwave background can strike a warm parabolic dish on earth hundreds of degrees warmer.

Model output is not observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from the observable, measurable, quantifiable world....why pretend that it is?

The entire body of physics understanding is in mathematical models. If you don't believe in those models, you don't believe in anything that has to do with science. Period.

But physics also undergoes rigorous testing of their models. I heard an interview with Kaku talking about how Relativity has passed every test for 100 years, but if it failed on even one data point it would have to be rejected and replaced by another theory.

How many tests has AGW passed? None, right?

 

[Wuwei]

Actual science dealing with physical phenomena is observation, measurement, and quantification.

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.

 

[Wuwei]

How many tests has AGW passed? None, right?

Wrong. Quantum mechanics predicts back scattering which has been measured.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How many tests has AGW passed? None, right?

Wrong. Quantum mechanics predicts back scattering which has been measured.

Did you not understand the question?

 

[Billy_Bob]

There's tons. You've been shown it repeatedly. You continue to lie at every turn and refuse to accept what the world's scientists - of every stripe - recognize as evidence supporting AGW. Everyone here knows that. There simply is no question of the validity of AGW any more. The only people who actually believe there is no evidence are the folks in tin hats worried about contrails and satellites. You have become the fringe of the fringe.

And yet, you can't produce any of it...thanks...

I can and have produced reams of it. You have seen it. You have read it. You lie about it. Your choice.

Not the first bit crick...I suppose you might believe that you have, but then that's why you have been taken in by the scam....measurements of the emission of various gasses made with instruments cooled to temperatures far below that of the atmosphere are evidence of nothing other than that you can measure emitted radiation from a thing if you cool your receiving instrument to a temperature lower than that of the emitter....hardly evidence supporting the A in AGW...and rocks evidence that greenhouse gasses absorb was only half the evidence as he failed to mention that they also emit what they absorb and that does not even begin to prove that absorption and emission equals warming...much less support the A in AGW...

As I said, my original premise is correct and you have never posted a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the A in AGW...none of you have.

You're stupid and you lie. There is no point in talking to you about anything. Buh-Bye.

Funny, That's the same way we feel about you. You cant connect the dots and you refuse to use cognitive thought.

You say it makes the temperature rise yet you have no evidence to support your suppositions..

 

[Olde Europe]

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.

 

[SSDD]

There's tons. You've been shown it repeatedly. You continue to lie at every turn and refuse to accept what the world's scientists - of every stripe - recognize as evidence supporting AGW. Everyone here knows that. There simply is no question of the validity of AGW any more. The only people who actually believe there is no evidence are the folks in tin hats worried about contrails and satellites. You have become the fringe of the fringe.

And yet, you can't produce any of it...thanks...

I can and have produced reams of it. You have seen it. You have read it. You lie about it. Your choice.

Not the first bit crick...I suppose you might believe that you have, but then that's why you have been taken in by the scam....measurements of the emission of various gasses made with instruments cooled to temperatures far below that of the atmosphere are evidence of nothing other than that you can measure emitted radiation from a thing if you cool your receiving instrument to a temperature lower than that of the emitter....hardly evidence supporting the A in AGW...and rocks evidence that greenhouse gasses absorb was only half the evidence as he failed to mention that they also emit what they absorb and that does not even begin to prove that absorption and emission equals warming...much less support the A in AGW...

As I said, my original premise is correct and you have never posted a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the A in AGW...none of you have.

You're stupid and you lie. There is no point in talking to you about anything. Buh-Bye.

See ya....don't let the door knob hit you in the ass on your way out....it might shove that tail you have tucked between your legs up your butt crack to an uncomfortable degree....thanks for playing and proving my point...not the first shred of actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the failed hypothesis you believe in so fervently....must be frustrating.

 

[SSDD]

Do we have to go through the fact again that thermal radiation from the cold cosmic microwave background can strike a warm parabolic dish on earth hundreds of degrees warmer.

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?

The entire body of physics understanding is in mathematical models. If you don't believe in those models, you don't believe in anything that has to do with science. Period.

And yet, the climate models fail miserably....might that be due to the fact that climate science doesn't actually understand physics?....when aeronautical engineers apply physics to their model wings, tails, nose cones etc and run the models if they succeed then they build a mock up and test the model against actual observation...if it fails in the wind tunnel, do you think they go into regular production?....or go back to the drawing board...

The climate models have failed in the wind tunnel...why then are you people still pushing for full production?...the hypothesis failed because of an imperfect understanding of physics...no other way around it. If they were based on a solid understanding of the physics and what actually drives the climate, they would not be failing.

 

[SSDD]

Crick supplied evidence that if you cool your instrument down to -80 you can measure incoming radiation from the atmosphere...how do you suppose that supports the A in AGW? Should be interesting.

So what if it's cooled down. Back scatter was measured. Don't forget the CMB also shows radiation can go from warm objects to cooler ones.

No...energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument was measured...that is not back scatter...that is energy moving from warm to cool as the second law predicts...measure "backscatter" at ambient temperature if you want to prove that it is happening...hard not to note that no such measurements exist as such a phenomenon has never been observed.

CMB was discovered via resonant radio frequency with a helium cooled instrument...and aside from that, it doesn't support the A in AGW anyway...nothing but a straw man to divert from the fact that there is no actual observed evidence in support of the A in AGW....