No Evidence

[Toddsterpatriot]

you can't prove back radiation. that's my claim.

All matter above 0K radiates in all directions.
You're claiming it only radiates toward space?

can you prove it radiates to the surface? you said you can't.

can you prove it radiates to the surface?

Yes.

you said you can't.

I said I couldn't prove your erroneous claims. Neither can you.

Prove it

View attachment 233394

Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

dude, that isn't proof of anything. if it were, you could tell me what the increase in temperature was from 200 to 400 ppm of CO2. you can't.

7.2 Atmospheric Radiation and Earth’s Climate | METEO 300: Fundamentals of Atmospheric Science

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

 

[jc456]

can you prove it radiates to the surface? you said you can't.

can you prove it radiates to the surface?

Yes.

you said you can't.

I said I couldn't prove your erroneous claims. Neither can you.

Prove it

View attachment 233394

Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

dude, that isn't proof of anything. if it were, you could tell me what the increase in temperature was from 200 to 400 ppm of CO2. you can't.

View attachment 233395

7.2 Atmospheric Radiation and Earth’s Climate | METEO 300: Fundamentals of Atmospheric Science

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

dude, that isn't proof of anything. if it were, you could tell me what the increase in temperature was from 200 to 400 ppm of CO2. you can't

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

can you prove it radiates to the surface?

Yes.

you said you can't.

I said I couldn't prove your erroneous claims. Neither can you.

Prove it

View attachment 233394

Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

dude, that isn't proof of anything. if it were, you could tell me what the increase in temperature was from 200 to 400 ppm of CO2. you can't.

View attachment 233395

7.2 Atmospheric Radiation and Earth’s Climate | METEO 300: Fundamentals of Atmospheric Science

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

dude, that isn't proof of anything. if it were, you could tell me what the increase in temperature was from 200 to 400 ppm of CO2. you can't

CO2 and Global Warming

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

 

[jc456]

Prove it

View attachment 233394

Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

dude, that isn't proof of anything. if it were, you could tell me what the increase in temperature was from 200 to 400 ppm of CO2. you can't.

View attachment 233395

7.2 Atmospheric Radiation and Earth’s Climate | METEO 300: Fundamentals of Atmospheric Science

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

dude, that isn't proof of anything. if it were, you could tell me what the increase in temperature was from 200 to 400 ppm of CO2. you can't

View attachment 233396

CO2 and Global Warming

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

dude, that isn't proof of anything. if it were, you could tell me what the increase in temperature was from 200 to 400 ppm of CO2. you can't

from the OP

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 233394

Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

dude, that isn't proof of anything. if it were, you could tell me what the increase in temperature was from 200 to 400 ppm of CO2. you can't.

View attachment 233395

7.2 Atmospheric Radiation and Earth’s Climate | METEO 300: Fundamentals of Atmospheric Science

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

dude, that isn't proof of anything. if it were, you could tell me what the increase in temperature was from 200 to 400 ppm of CO2. you can't

View attachment 233396

CO2 and Global Warming

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

dude, that isn't proof of anything. if it were, you could tell me what the increase in temperature was from 200 to 400 ppm of CO2. you can't

from the OP

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

dude, that isn't proof of anything.

It's shows that matter above 0K radiates in all directions.

So, no links from you that show matter is somehow restricted from radiating in certain directions?

 

[jc456]

dude, that isn't proof of anything. if it were, you could tell me what the increase in temperature was from 200 to 400 ppm of CO2. you can't.

View attachment 233395

7.2 Atmospheric Radiation and Earth’s Climate | METEO 300: Fundamentals of Atmospheric Science

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

dude, that isn't proof of anything. if it were, you could tell me what the increase in temperature was from 200 to 400 ppm of CO2. you can't

View attachment 233396

CO2 and Global Warming

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

dude, that isn't proof of anything. if it were, you could tell me what the increase in temperature was from 200 to 400 ppm of CO2. you can't

from the OP

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

dude, that isn't proof of anything.

It's shows that matter above 0K radiates in all directions.

So, no links from you that show matter is somehow restricted from radiating in certain directions?

how, it isn't observed. none of what you have posted is.

Our atmosphere is much too complex for anyone to know what is happening. That's why one can't produce an observed or measured back radiation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 233395

7.2 Atmospheric Radiation and Earth’s Climate | METEO 300: Fundamentals of Atmospheric Science

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

dude, that isn't proof of anything. if it were, you could tell me what the increase in temperature was from 200 to 400 ppm of CO2. you can't

View attachment 233396

CO2 and Global Warming

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

dude, that isn't proof of anything. if it were, you could tell me what the increase in temperature was from 200 to 400 ppm of CO2. you can't

from the OP

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

dude, that isn't proof of anything.

It's shows that matter above 0K radiates in all directions.

So, no links from you that show matter is somehow restricted from radiating in certain directions?

how, it isn't observed. none of what you have posted does.

how, it isn't observed

It's observed all the time.

You know what isn't observed?
Links that agree with your erroneous claims.

 

[jc456]

dude, that isn't proof of anything. if it were, you could tell me what the increase in temperature was from 200 to 400 ppm of CO2. you can't

View attachment 233396

CO2 and Global Warming

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

dude, that isn't proof of anything. if it were, you could tell me what the increase in temperature was from 200 to 400 ppm of CO2. you can't

from the OP

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

dude, that isn't proof of anything.

It's shows that matter above 0K radiates in all directions.

So, no links from you that show matter is somehow restricted from radiating in certain directions?

how, it isn't observed. none of what you have posted does.

how, it isn't observed

It's observed all the time.

You know what isn't observed?
Links that agree with your erroneous claims.

you have zip observed back radiation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 233396

CO2 and Global Warming

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

dude, that isn't proof of anything. if it were, you could tell me what the increase in temperature was from 200 to 400 ppm of CO2. you can't

from the OP

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

dude, that isn't proof of anything.

It's shows that matter above 0K radiates in all directions.

So, no links from you that show matter is somehow restricted from radiating in certain directions?

how, it isn't observed. none of what you have posted does.

how, it isn't observed

It's observed all the time.

You know what isn't observed?
Links that agree with your erroneous claims.

you have zip observed back radiation.

The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

 

[jc456]

dude, that isn't proof of anything. if it were, you could tell me what the increase in temperature was from 200 to 400 ppm of CO2. you can't

from the OP

1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burins of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.

dude, that isn't proof of anything.

It's shows that matter above 0K radiates in all directions.

So, no links from you that show matter is somehow restricted from radiating in certain directions?

how, it isn't observed. none of what you have posted does.

how, it isn't observed

It's observed all the time.

You know what isn't observed?
Links that agree with your erroneous claims.

you have zip observed back radiation.

View attachment 233399

The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

dude, that doesn't prove a fking thing. again, the atmosphere is too complex for that to be explained as back radiation. You have pressure and gravity and many other variables, that interfere with your ability to take that and say see!!!! LOL.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

dude, that isn't proof of anything.

It's shows that matter above 0K radiates in all directions.

So, no links from you that show matter is somehow restricted from radiating in certain directions?

how, it isn't observed. none of what you have posted does.

how, it isn't observed

It's observed all the time.

You know what isn't observed?
Links that agree with your erroneous claims.

you have zip observed back radiation.

View attachment 233399

The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

dude, that doesn't prove a fking thing. again, the atmosphere is too complex for that to be explained as back radiation. You have pressure and gravity and many other variables, that interfere with your ability to take that and say see!!!! LOL.

dude, that doesn't prove a fking thing.

Dude, you said it's never observed.
Were you a liar or just stupid?

the atmosphere is too complex for that to be explained as back radiation.

What is downward LWIR if not "back radiation"?

You have pressure and gravity and many other variables,

LWIR is caused by gravity and pressure? Okay...…….durr.

 

[jc456]

how, it isn't observed. none of what you have posted does.

how, it isn't observed

It's observed all the time.

You know what isn't observed?
Links that agree with your erroneous claims.

you have zip observed back radiation.

View attachment 233399

The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

dude, that doesn't prove a fking thing. again, the atmosphere is too complex for that to be explained as back radiation. You have pressure and gravity and many other variables, that interfere with your ability to take that and say see!!!! LOL.

dude, that doesn't prove a fking thing.

Dude, you said it's never observed.
Were you a liar or just stupid?

the atmosphere is too complex for that to be explained as back radiation.

What is downward LWIR if not "back radiation"?

You have pressure and gravity and many other variables,

LWIR is caused by gravity and pressure? Okay...…….durr.

Not observed sorry pal

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

how, it isn't observed

It's observed all the time.

You know what isn't observed?
Links that agree with your erroneous claims.

you have zip observed back radiation.

View attachment 233399

The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

dude, that doesn't prove a fking thing. again, the atmosphere is too complex for that to be explained as back radiation. You have pressure and gravity and many other variables, that interfere with your ability to take that and say see!!!! LOL.

dude, that doesn't prove a fking thing.

Dude, you said it's never observed.
Were you a liar or just stupid?

the atmosphere is too complex for that to be explained as back radiation.

What is downward LWIR if not "back radiation"?

You have pressure and gravity and many other variables,

LWIR is caused by gravity and pressure? Okay...…….durr.

Not observed sorry pal

 

[jc456]

you have zip observed back radiation.

View attachment 233399

The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

dude, that doesn't prove a fking thing. again, the atmosphere is too complex for that to be explained as back radiation. You have pressure and gravity and many other variables, that interfere with your ability to take that and say see!!!! LOL.

dude, that doesn't prove a fking thing.

Dude, you said it's never observed.
Were you a liar or just stupid?

the atmosphere is too complex for that to be explained as back radiation.

What is downward LWIR if not "back radiation"?

You have pressure and gravity and many other variables,

LWIR is caused by gravity and pressure? Okay...…….durr.

Not observed sorry pal

Doesn’t prove back radiating at all

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 233399

The Amazing Case of “Back Radiation” – Part Two

Now, about your erroneous claims, link?

dude, that doesn't prove a fking thing. again, the atmosphere is too complex for that to be explained as back radiation. You have pressure and gravity and many other variables, that interfere with your ability to take that and say see!!!! LOL.

dude, that doesn't prove a fking thing.

Dude, you said it's never observed.
Were you a liar or just stupid?

the atmosphere is too complex for that to be explained as back radiation.

What is downward LWIR if not "back radiation"?

You have pressure and gravity and many other variables,

LWIR is caused by gravity and pressure? Okay...…….durr.

Not observed sorry pal

Doesn’t prove back radiating at all

If you prefer to use the term, "Downward Longwave Radiation", that's fine with me.

 

[jc456]

dude, that doesn't prove a fking thing. again, the atmosphere is too complex for that to be explained as back radiation. You have pressure and gravity and many other variables, that interfere with your ability to take that and say see!!!! LOL.

dude, that doesn't prove a fking thing.

Dude, you said it's never observed.
Were you a liar or just stupid?

the atmosphere is too complex for that to be explained as back radiation.

What is downward LWIR if not "back radiation"?

You have pressure and gravity and many other variables,

LWIR is caused by gravity and pressure? Okay...…….durr.

Not observed sorry pal

Doesn’t prove back radiating at all

If you prefer to use the term, "Downward Longwave Radiation", that's fine with me.

Nothing coming back, not been observed

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

dude, that doesn't prove a fking thing.

Dude, you said it's never observed.
Were you a liar or just stupid?

the atmosphere is too complex for that to be explained as back radiation.

What is downward LWIR if not "back radiation"?

You have pressure and gravity and many other variables,

LWIR is caused by gravity and pressure? Okay...…….durr.

Not observed sorry pal

Doesn’t prove back radiating at all

If you prefer to use the term, "Downward Longwave Radiation", that's fine with me.

Nothing coming back, not been observed

Nothing coming back, not been observed

Observed right here. Is the graph too complicated for you?
Never used graphs before you dropped out of school?

 

[jc456]

Not observed sorry pal

Doesn’t prove back radiating at all

If you prefer to use the term, "Downward Longwave Radiation", that's fine with me.

Nothing coming back, not been observed

Nothing coming back, not been observed

Observed right here. Is the graph too complicated for you?
Never used graphs before you dropped out of school?

It’s fake

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Doesn’t prove back radiating at all

If you prefer to use the term, "Downward Longwave Radiation", that's fine with me.

Nothing coming back, not been observed

Nothing coming back, not been observed

Observed right here. Is the graph too complicated for you?
Never used graphs before you dropped out of school?

It’s fake

Prove it.

 

[jc456]

Doesn’t prove back radiating at all

If you prefer to use the term, "Downward Longwave Radiation", that's fine with me.

Nothing coming back, not been observed

Nothing coming back, not been observed

Observed right here. Is the graph too complicated for you?
Never used graphs before you dropped out of school?

It’s fake

Prove it.

LOL you prove it’s observed name the device that read it