More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[Billy_Bob]

Here is a visual representation of how much energy is captured and stored in the atmosphere. The CO2 notch would go all the way up to the top line if no CO2 was present. Instead, it radiates the amount associated with minus 60C. The missing area is the energy that has to find another way out.

LOL..

Ian,

This is a BAND PASS GRAPH! it does not tell us how much energy is emitted...It only tells us how the matter in our atmosphere emits or passes energy in the wavelength bands, thus BANDPASS.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here is a visual representation of how much energy is captured and stored in the atmosphere. The CO2 notch would go all the way up to the top line if no CO2 was present. Instead, it radiates the amount associated with minus 60C. The missing area is the energy that has to find another way out.

LOL..

Ian,

This is a BAND PASS GRAPH! it does not tell us how much energy is emitted...It only tells us how the matter in our atmosphere emits or passes energy in the wavelength bands, thus BANDPASS.

This is a BAND PASS GRAPH! it does not tell us how much energy is emitted.

Is that your final answer?

 

[Billy_Bob]

As for EM not being affected by other waves, that is total bull shit Ian and worse still is you know better.

Ask anyone who installs radio, microwave, laser, or any other sort of array that must interact with other arrays emitting at the same frequency if EM energy interacts with other EM energy. EM is EM regardless of the frequency and all of it, across every frequency is subject to the same laws of physics, and anyone who claims that EM atany frequency only interacts with matter is uninformed, ignorant, and simply full of shit.

I worked for a telecommunications company for a while dealing in fiber optics, QAM modulation, high power microwave emitters/receivers and closed circuit cable distribution. Reflections and magnetic wave interference can wipe out EM waves.

Its rather funny to deal with those who don't have a damn clue. Reflections in the system can kill it while different frequencies can pass without a problem.. It all comes down the the conductor and loads... if they cant use the energy sent to them nothing happens..

Such is the problem with CO2 in our atmosphere, the wavelengths it emits is incapable of warming the oceans and the water vapor in the atmosphere is not holding the heat like they hypothesized.. But they still refuse to correct the hypothesis.

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 has zero or less influence on global temperatures.

Another naked claim without explanation or evidence.

I broke my explanation down into three main components to make it easier for you to specify where I might have gone wrong.

Unlike you I am willing to add further explanation to counter a criticism.

Have at it.

First off lets look at the LOG for CO2.

Now if we look at the graph, the distance from 280ppm to 400pm. shows we should have had warming of about 3 deg C in the last 200 years.

Current warming is but +0.48 deg C in unaltered data sets and +0.86 deg C in altered data sets.

Please tell me how a trace gas in lab situations can have this kind of warming but in our atmosphere have just 10-15% of that warming? Water is having a negative impact on the gas and the warming that has happened is to small to be fully attributed to CO2. Now rule out Solar influences, angle of incidence and Milankovich cycles. There is nothing left to imply CO2 has any discernible affect.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Here is a visual representation of how much energy is captured and stored in the atmosphere. The CO2 notch would go all the way up to the top line if no CO2 was present. Instead, it radiates the amount associated with minus 60C. The missing area is the energy that has to find another way out.

LOL..

Ian,

This is a BAND PASS GRAPH! it does not tell us how much energy is emitted...It only tells us how the matter in our atmosphere emits or passes energy in the wavelength bands, thus BANDPASS.

This is a BAND PASS GRAPH! it does not tell us how much energy is emitted.

View attachment 163957

Is that your final answer?

Prove otherwise..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here is a visual representation of how much energy is captured and stored in the atmosphere. The CO2 notch would go all the way up to the top line if no CO2 was present. Instead, it radiates the amount associated with minus 60C. The missing area is the energy that has to find another way out.

LOL..

Ian,

This is a BAND PASS GRAPH! it does not tell us how much energy is emitted...It only tells us how the matter in our atmosphere emits or passes energy in the wavelength bands, thus BANDPASS.

This is a BAND PASS GRAPH! it does not tell us how much energy is emitted.

View attachment 163957

Is that your final answer?

Prove otherwise..

Prove that you missed the part of the graph that showed how much energy is radiated? DERP!

 

[IanC]

Now we know, by physical measurements, the mass of the atmosphere is not be affected by the lack of kinetic energy that can be stored by LWIR in this narrow band. There is no hot spot

How am I supposed to respond to this type of garbled message?

What physical measurements?

The surface energy is delivered to the atmosphere by LWIR, it is then stored by the atmospheric mass as kinetic and potential energy.

What type of hot spot are you talking about? For CO2 and 15 micron IR the hot spot is about two metres off the surface. Two metres is the average mean free path of a 15 micron photon.

"For CO2 and 15 micron IR the hot spot is about two metres off the surface."

Bull Shit Ian..

The area of the atmosphere is about 9.6 kl (35,000 to 45,000 feet) up according to the IPCC and their overlords, where the water vapor and CO2 are supposed to mix and throw heat back to the surface.. You fail at even the very basics of the AGW hypothesis.

SO Ian.. You want to try again?

More garbled nonsense.

9.6 kilometres is slightly more than 30,000 feet, and not even in the range you gave. The abbreviation for kilometre is km, which you would know if you had a scientific background.

I was probably the first here to bring up the missing hot spot as a major flaw in AGW theory but it has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with water vapour.

Hansen, Schmidt and the rest of the Climate Team over at Real Climate tried to spin the hot spot failure by saying the real CO2 signature was stratospheric cooling.

I am willing to debate the Hot Spot with you but at least get up to speed on the issues. It has nothing to do with CO2 absorbing surface IR. Quit asking me to defend the IPCC and their AGW models. I have repeatedly stated I don't agree with them.

On the other hand, the presence of CO2 is obviously a warming factor, with only the amount of warming being in doubt.

 

[IanC]

Here is a visual representation of how much energy is captured and stored in the atmosphere. The CO2 notch would go all the way up to the top line if no CO2 was present. Instead, it radiates the amount associated with minus 60C. The missing area is the energy that has to find another way out.

LOL..

Ian,

This is a BAND PASS GRAPH! it does not tell us how much energy is emitted...It only tells us how the matter in our atmosphere emits or passes energy in the wavelength bands, thus BANDPASS.

Dolt

 

[IanC]

CO2 has zero or less influence on global temperatures.

Another naked claim without explanation or evidence.

I broke my explanation down into three main components to make it easier for you to specify where I might have gone wrong.

Unlike you I am willing to add further explanation to counter a criticism.

Have at it.

First off lets look at the LOG for CO2.
View attachment 163960
Now if we look at the graph, the distance from 280ppm to 400pm. shows we should have had warming of about 3 deg C in the last 200 years.

Current warming is but +0.48 deg C in unaltered data sets and +0.86 deg C in altered data sets.

Please tell me how a trace gas in lab situations can have this kind of warming but in our atmosphere have just 10-15% of that warming? Water is having a negative impact on the gas and the warming that has happened is to small to be fully attributed to CO2. Now rule out Solar influences, angle of incidence and Milankovich cycles. There is nothing left to imply CO2 has any discernible affect.

More nonsense.

Less than half a doubling of CO2 should cause 3C of warming?? What have you been smoking?

How did you get EXACT numbers to two decimal places for the supposedly real warming and the supposedly fake warming? You just make up things to say. Do you believe your own bullshit?

 

[skookerasbil]

Karakoram glaciers

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/11/some-of-the-worlds-largest-non-polar-glaciers-are-expanding-despite-global-warming/

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 has zero or less influence on global temperatures.

Another naked claim without explanation or evidence.

I broke my explanation down into three main components to make it easier for you to specify where I might have gone wrong.

Unlike you I am willing to add further explanation to counter a criticism.

Have at it.

First off lets look at the LOG for CO2.
View attachment 163960
Now if we look at the graph, the distance from 280ppm to 400pm. shows we should have had warming of about 3 deg C in the last 200 years.

Current warming is but +0.48 deg C in unaltered data sets and +0.86 deg C in altered data sets.

Please tell me how a trace gas in lab situations can have this kind of warming but in our atmosphere have just 10-15% of that warming? Water is having a negative impact on the gas and the warming that has happened is to small to be fully attributed to CO2. Now rule out Solar influences, angle of incidence and Milankovich cycles. There is nothing left to imply CO2 has any discernible affect.

More nonsense.

Less than half a doubling of CO2 should cause 3C of warming?? What have you been smoking?

How did you get EXACT numbers to two decimal places for the supposedly real warming and the supposedly fake warming? You just make up things to say. Do you believe your own bullshit?

I see you took graph reading from Krick... The LOG graph shows you what we should have had for warming.. Doing the math tells us the rest..

 

[skookerasbil]

EPA scuttles rule on mining cleanup funding


Who's not winning?

 

[IanC]

CO2 has zero or less influence on global temperatures.

Another naked claim without explanation or evidence.

I broke my explanation down into three main components to make it easier for you to specify where I might have gone wrong.

Unlike you I am willing to add further explanation to counter a criticism.

Have at it.

First off lets look at the LOG for CO2.
View attachment 163960
Now if we look at the graph, the distance from 280ppm to 400pm. shows we should have had warming of about 3 deg C in the last 200 years.

Current warming is but +0.48 deg C in unaltered data sets and +0.86 deg C in altered data sets.

Please tell me how a trace gas in lab situations can have this kind of warming but in our atmosphere have just 10-15% of that warming? Water is having a negative impact on the gas and the warming that has happened is to small to be fully attributed to CO2. Now rule out Solar influences, angle of incidence and Milankovich cycles. There is nothing left to imply CO2 has any discernible affect.

More nonsense.

Less than half a doubling of CO2 should cause 3C of warming?? What have you been smoking?

How did you get EXACT numbers to two decimal places for the supposedly real warming and the supposedly fake warming? You just make up things to say. Do you believe your own bullshit?

I see you took graph reading from Krick... The LOG graph shows you what we should have had for warming.. Doing the math tells us the rest..

I have repeatedly said that I concur with calculations that put the warming influence of CO2 at roughly 1C per doubling.

You put up a graph that gives two values, neither of which are close to 1C per doubling. I immediately stop looking. How on Earth do you think you can get exact figures to two decimal places for the 'real' and 'fake' amount of warming?

I think it is you who has difficulties discerning the information present in a graph.

And the abbreviation for the logarithmic function is not all caps, and this graph uses the natural log which is abbreviated as ln

 

[skookerasbil]

https://qz.com/1144207/the-worlds-astonishing-dependence-on-fossil-fuels-hasnt-changed-in-40-years/

 

[skookerasbil]

Snowing in Florida today s0ns............ Weather It’s so cold outside that it snowed in Florida By Monique O. Madan [email protected] Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/weather/article189034219.html#fmp#storylink=cpy

 

[skookerasbil]

thread soon coming up to 1/4 of million "views"............dang...........especially when you consider that virtually all of the threads posted up by the k00k left climate crusaders get only a few hundred "views" at best.

 

[skookerasbil]

http://grist.org/climate-energy/most-americans-accept-that-climate-change-is-real-they-just-dont-care-that-much-about-it/


Who's not winning?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Setting cold records.... thousands of them....

And all this time we were supposed to be setting hot records and not cold records... Seems to me the planet is cooling by the shear numbers of cold records vs the very few hot ones... But that would challenge the alarmist modeling and adjustments... Even with the adjustments cooling is very evident, even in the southern hemisphere where its supposed to be warming for summer...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Military Times: Pentagon still preparing for climate change

Cities prepare for global warming » Yale Climate Connections

What Are Other Countries Doing on Climate Change? | World Resources Institute

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Setting cold records.... thousands of them....
View attachment 167848

And all this time we were supposed to be setting hot records and not cold records... Seems to me the planet is cooling by the shear numbers of cold records vs the very few hot ones... But that would challenge the alarmist modeling and adjustments... Even with the adjustments cooling is very evident, even in the southern hemisphere where its supposed to be warming for summer...

What kind of an idiot can't tell the difference between local weather and global climate? Answer: an uneducated slob with no knowledge whatsoever on either topic. Seriously bro, you would not pass my kids' freshman science class.