No Evidence

[jc456]

If there were, we would not be 697 posts into this thread and still waiting

Your OP was knocked down several times. The only reason there are 697 posts is that you still keep trying to keep it alive like ground hog day.

then why is it you can't direct us to the post with the observed data the OP was created for?

 

[SSDD]

If there were, we would not be 697 posts into this thread and still waiting

Your OP was knocked down several times. The only reason there are 697 posts is that you still keep trying to keep it alive like ground hog day.

Sorry guy...not even close...are you talking about your misunderstanding of resonant radio frequencies? Even if you were correct, which you aren't, how would it challenge any of the 3 statements I made in the OP?

The greenhouse in a bottle experiment? Are you really that easily fooled?

What else has anyone posted by way of challenging the op? Feel free to point out any post...I will be happy to explain to you why it has not challenged the OP.

 

[SSDD]

If there were, we would not be 697 posts into this thread and still waiting

Your OP was knocked down several times. The only reason there are 697 posts is that you still keep trying to keep it alive like ground hog day.

then why is it you can't direct us to the post with the observed data the OP was created for?

He just hopes that someone might believe him...he knows full well that no such evidence was posted...his game is to fool as many people as possible...figuring that no one will go back and actually look.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If there were, we would not be 697 posts into this thread and still waiting

Your OP was knocked down several times. The only reason there are 697 posts is that you still keep trying to keep it alive like ground hog day.

then why is it you can't direct us to the post with the observed data the OP was created for?

He just hopes that someone might believe him...he knows full well that no such evidence was posted...his game is to fool as many people as possible...figuring that no one will go back and actually look.

All by yourself. Weird.

 

[SSDD]

All by yourself. Weird.

You keep saying that like you think it bothers me? It doesn't. I don't have any bbbaaaahhhhh in my system so I feel no need to be part of a herd. I was pretty much all by myself when I told my doc that my ulcer 25 years ago wasn't due to stress...and 10 years ago when I told my doc that my cholesterol numbers had exactly jack to do with my heart health...and 5 years ago when I told him that salt wasn't going to give me high blood pressure....

Science has been wrong far more often than they have been right...in fact, if you choose the opposite side on practically any "consensus" topic, the odds are way in your favor that you are right and science will eventually prove it for you.

I feel sorry for people who are afraid to separate from the herd...bbbaaaahhhhh...sounds like a sucky way to live.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All by yourself. Weird.

You keep saying that like you think it bothers me? It doesn't. I don't have any bbbaaaahhhhh in my system so I feel no need to be part of a herd. I was pretty much all by myself when I told my doc that my ulcer 25 years ago wasn't due to stress...and 10 years ago when I told my doc that my cholesterol numbers had exactly jack to do with my heart health...and 5 years ago when I told him that salt wasn't going to give me high blood pressure....

Science has been wrong far more often than they have been right...in fact, if you choose the opposite side on practically any "consensus" topic, the odds are way in your favor that you are right and science will eventually prove it for you.

I feel sorry for people who are afraid to separate from the herd...bbbaaaahhhhh...sounds like a sucky way to live.

You keep saying that like you think it bothers me?

Why would it bother you?
You're right and Einstein, Bohr, Planck et al are wrong.
It's you against all of science.

Even though you have no evidence on your side that backs up your ridiculous, causality violating claims.

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy...not even close...are you talking about your misunderstanding of resonant radio frequencies? Even if you were correct, which you aren't, how would it challenge any of the 3 statements I made in the OP?

Ah yes, you are still lying about resonant radio frequencies. We both know that the cosmic microwave background came from the depths of space at 2.7 degrees K and actually hit an antenna at much warmer 288 K. But you prefer to lie and replace that observed measured experiment with idiocy. I'm not trying to convince you of science since you think it is fairy dust. It is just amazing to see how low you demean yourself with your idiocy.

Did you every figure out where all the 15,700 W/m² of LW radiation from the surface of Venus goes? I didn't think so. I think your answer to that would be entertaining for everyone here.

Don't forget this: The evidence that the air heats up is given by these simple steps:

1. Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
2. That loss of EM energy to the GHGs is random vibrational energy.
3. The vibrating GHG will most likely hit a random air molecule.
4. Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
5. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
6. The conservation of energy requires the above.

That simple physics shows a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

If you disagree, which step do you think is wrong?
Why are you afraid to answer this question?

Over 700 posts and you still are afraid to answer those questions. They prove your OP is fairy dust.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

To whom should we look for a judgement on whether the results of the tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies made of AGW "rise to the level" of empirical evidence? High school dropout, physics delusionist SSDD or thousands and thousands of published, PhD climate scientists?

Gosh, that's a tough question...

Actually, it is pretty simple.

Given the amount of peer reviewed papers that have turned out to be total trash as of late (peer reviewed seems to be more and more a codeword for: collective corruption), hiding behind such a claim is only working against it.

Science’s Big Scandal: Fraudulent, Plagiarized, and Nonsense Papers Pass Peer Review

 

[SSDD]

Ah yes, you are still lying about resonant radio frequencies. We both know that the cosmic microwave background came from the depths of space at 2.7 degrees K and actually hit an antenna at much warmer 288 K. But you prefer to lie and replace that observed measured experiment with idiocy. I'm not trying to convince you of science since you think it is fairy dust. It is just amazing to see how low you demean yourself with your idiocy.

Again...even if you were right...which again, you are not...exactly how would that challenge any of the three statements I made in the OP? Explain how that might favor the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...or establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming int he atmosphere, or be a published paper that empirically quantified the warming due to our activities and ascribed that warming to so called greenhouse gasses?

Did you every figure out where all the 15,700 W/m² of LW radiation from the surface of Venus goes? I didn't think so. I think your answer to that would be entertaining for everyone here.

I told you, we can talk about that when you learn to read an equation...and again, that doesn't speak to any of the statements in my OP.

Don't forget this: The evidence that the air heats up is given by these simple steps:

1. Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
2. That loss of EM energy to the GHGs is random vibrational energy.
3. The vibrating GHG will most likely hit a random air molecule.
4. Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
5. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
6. The conservation of energy requires the above.

Got any observed, measured evidence to support that model? Didn't think so. I asked for observed measured evidence in the OP...you keep forgetting about the actual evidence part and present models as if they were real.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ah yes, you are still lying about resonant radio frequencies. We both know that the cosmic microwave background came from the depths of space at 2.7 degrees K and actually hit an antenna at much warmer 288 K. But you prefer to lie and replace that observed measured experiment with idiocy. I'm not trying to convince you of science since you think it is fairy dust. It is just amazing to see how low you demean yourself with your idiocy.

Again...even if you were right...which again, you are not...exactly how would that challenge any of the three statements I made in the OP? Explain how that might favor the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...or establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming int he atmosphere, or be a published paper that empirically quantified the warming due to our activities and ascribed that warming to so called greenhouse gasses?

Did you every figure out where all the 15,700 W/m² of LW radiation from the surface of Venus goes? I didn't think so. I think your answer to that would be entertaining for everyone here.

I told you, we can talk about that when you learn to read an equation...and again, that doesn't speak to any of the statements in my OP.

Don't forget this: The evidence that the air heats up is given by these simple steps:

1. Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
2. That loss of EM energy to the GHGs is random vibrational energy.
3. The vibrating GHG will most likely hit a random air molecule.
4. Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
5. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
6. The conservation of energy requires the above.

Got any observed, measured evidence to support that model? Didn't think so. I asked for observed measured evidence in the OP...you keep forgetting about the actual evidence part and present models as if they were real.

Got any observed, measured evidence to support that model?

Got any observed, measured evidence to support all black body radiation from the surface escaping, unimpeded, into space? DURR!

 

[jc456]

Ah yes, you are still lying about resonant radio frequencies. We both know that the cosmic microwave background came from the depths of space at 2.7 degrees K and actually hit an antenna at much warmer 288 K. But you prefer to lie and replace that observed measured experiment with idiocy. I'm not trying to convince you of science since you think it is fairy dust. It is just amazing to see how low you demean yourself with your idiocy.

Again...even if you were right...which again, you are not...exactly how would that challenge any of the three statements I made in the OP? Explain how that might favor the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...or establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming int he atmosphere, or be a published paper that empirically quantified the warming due to our activities and ascribed that warming to so called greenhouse gasses?

Did you every figure out where all the 15,700 W/m² of LW radiation from the surface of Venus goes? I didn't think so. I think your answer to that would be entertaining for everyone here.

I told you, we can talk about that when you learn to read an equation...and again, that doesn't speak to any of the statements in my OP.

Don't forget this: The evidence that the air heats up is given by these simple steps:

1. Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
2. That loss of EM energy to the GHGs is random vibrational energy.
3. The vibrating GHG will most likely hit a random air molecule.
4. Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
5. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
6. The conservation of energy requires the above.

Got any observed, measured evidence to support that model? Didn't think so. I asked for observed measured evidence in the OP...you keep forgetting about the actual evidence part and present models as if they were real.

Got any observed, measured evidence to support that model?

Got any observed, measured evidence to support all black body radiation from the surface escaping, unimpeded, into space? DURR!

so your answer is 'no' to his question. Got it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ah yes, you are still lying about resonant radio frequencies. We both know that the cosmic microwave background came from the depths of space at 2.7 degrees K and actually hit an antenna at much warmer 288 K. But you prefer to lie and replace that observed measured experiment with idiocy. I'm not trying to convince you of science since you think it is fairy dust. It is just amazing to see how low you demean yourself with your idiocy.

Again...even if you were right...which again, you are not...exactly how would that challenge any of the three statements I made in the OP? Explain how that might favor the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...or establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming int he atmosphere, or be a published paper that empirically quantified the warming due to our activities and ascribed that warming to so called greenhouse gasses?

Did you every figure out where all the 15,700 W/m² of LW radiation from the surface of Venus goes? I didn't think so. I think your answer to that would be entertaining for everyone here.

I told you, we can talk about that when you learn to read an equation...and again, that doesn't speak to any of the statements in my OP.

Don't forget this: The evidence that the air heats up is given by these simple steps:

1. Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
2. That loss of EM energy to the GHGs is random vibrational energy.
3. The vibrating GHG will most likely hit a random air molecule.
4. Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
5. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
6. The conservation of energy requires the above.

Got any observed, measured evidence to support that model? Didn't think so. I asked for observed measured evidence in the OP...you keep forgetting about the actual evidence part and present models as if they were real.

Got any observed, measured evidence to support that model?

Got any observed, measured evidence to support all black body radiation from the surface escaping, unimpeded, into space? DURR!

so your answer is 'no' to his question. Got it.

My answer is, you're an idiot, all alone.

 

[jc456]

Ah yes, you are still lying about resonant radio frequencies. We both know that the cosmic microwave background came from the depths of space at 2.7 degrees K and actually hit an antenna at much warmer 288 K. But you prefer to lie and replace that observed measured experiment with idiocy. I'm not trying to convince you of science since you think it is fairy dust. It is just amazing to see how low you demean yourself with your idiocy.

Again...even if you were right...which again, you are not...exactly how would that challenge any of the three statements I made in the OP? Explain how that might favor the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...or establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming int he atmosphere, or be a published paper that empirically quantified the warming due to our activities and ascribed that warming to so called greenhouse gasses?

Did you every figure out where all the 15,700 W/m² of LW radiation from the surface of Venus goes? I didn't think so. I think your answer to that would be entertaining for everyone here.

I told you, we can talk about that when you learn to read an equation...and again, that doesn't speak to any of the statements in my OP.

Don't forget this: The evidence that the air heats up is given by these simple steps:

1. Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
2. That loss of EM energy to the GHGs is random vibrational energy.
3. The vibrating GHG will most likely hit a random air molecule.
4. Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
5. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
6. The conservation of energy requires the above.

Got any observed, measured evidence to support that model? Didn't think so. I asked for observed measured evidence in the OP...you keep forgetting about the actual evidence part and present models as if they were real.

Got any observed, measured evidence to support that model?

Got any observed, measured evidence to support all black body radiation from the surface escaping, unimpeded, into space? DURR!

so your answer is 'no' to his question. Got it.

My answer is, you're an idiot, all alone.

and still no observed measured evidence. ta da...... right on queue bubba. BTW, I am proud of who I am, alone, I don't need partners. Why do you feel the need to be a peer to someone?

 

[SSDD]

Got any observed, measured evidence to support all black body radiation from the surface escaping, unimpeded, into space? DURR!

Let me guess...you think CO2 absorbs and holds energy? Of course it does...once it reaches its equilibrium temperature of -80F...till it reaches that temperature, it simply radiates everything it absorbs...

 

[SSDD]

[
and still no observed measured evidence. ta da...... right on queue bubba. BTW, I am proud of who I am, alone, I don't need partners. Why do you feel the need to be a peer to someone?

Must be frustrating to believe in something as fervently as they do and not have the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ah yes, you are still lying about resonant radio frequencies. We both know that the cosmic microwave background came from the depths of space at 2.7 degrees K and actually hit an antenna at much warmer 288 K. But you prefer to lie and replace that observed measured experiment with idiocy. I'm not trying to convince you of science since you think it is fairy dust. It is just amazing to see how low you demean yourself with your idiocy.

Again...even if you were right...which again, you are not...exactly how would that challenge any of the three statements I made in the OP? Explain how that might favor the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...or establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming int he atmosphere, or be a published paper that empirically quantified the warming due to our activities and ascribed that warming to so called greenhouse gasses?

Did you every figure out where all the 15,700 W/m² of LW radiation from the surface of Venus goes? I didn't think so. I think your answer to that would be entertaining for everyone here.

I told you, we can talk about that when you learn to read an equation...and again, that doesn't speak to any of the statements in my OP.

Don't forget this: The evidence that the air heats up is given by these simple steps:

1. Black body radiation from the earth is absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
2. That loss of EM energy to the GHGs is random vibrational energy.
3. The vibrating GHG will most likely hit a random air molecule.
4. Gain of random energy in a gas is thermal energy.
5. That energy gain in the atmosphere must be equal to the EM energy loss.
6. The conservation of energy requires the above.

Got any observed, measured evidence to support that model? Didn't think so. I asked for observed measured evidence in the OP...you keep forgetting about the actual evidence part and present models as if they were real.

Got any observed, measured evidence to support that model?

Got any observed, measured evidence to support all black body radiation from the surface escaping, unimpeded, into space? DURR!

so your answer is 'no' to his question. Got it.

My answer is, you're an idiot, all alone.

and still no observed measured evidence. ta da...... right on queue bubba. BTW, I am proud of who I am, alone, I don't need partners. Why do you feel the need to be a peer to someone?

No evidence. Except downward LWIR.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Got any observed, measured evidence to support all black body radiation from the surface escaping, unimpeded, into space? DURR!

Let me guess...you think CO2 absorbs and holds energy? Of course it does...once it reaches its equilibrium temperature of -80F...till it reaches that temperature, it simply radiates everything it absorbs...

Let me guess...you think CO2 absorbs and holds energy?

It absorbs energy? Neat.
It hands it off to other molecules? Neat.

it simply radiates everything it absorbs.

Of course it does, no dimmer switch needed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[
and still no observed measured evidence. ta da...... right on queue bubba. BTW, I am proud of who I am, alone, I don't need partners. Why do you feel the need to be a peer to someone?

Must be frustrating to believe in something as fervently as they do and not have the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support it.

It's not frustrating to believe in modern physics.
It's even nice to agree with Einstein, Bohr, Planck et al.

Not at all lonely like your solo crusade.

 

[jc456]

Again...even if you were right...which again, you are not...exactly how would that challenge any of the three statements I made in the OP? Explain how that might favor the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...or establish a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming int he atmosphere, or be a published paper that empirically quantified the warming due to our activities and ascribed that warming to so called greenhouse gasses?

I told you, we can talk about that when you learn to read an equation...and again, that doesn't speak to any of the statements in my OP.

Got any observed, measured evidence to support that model? Didn't think so. I asked for observed measured evidence in the OP...you keep forgetting about the actual evidence part and present models as if they were real.

Got any observed, measured evidence to support that model?

Got any observed, measured evidence to support all black body radiation from the surface escaping, unimpeded, into space? DURR!

so your answer is 'no' to his question. Got it.

My answer is, you're an idiot, all alone.

and still no observed measured evidence. ta da...... right on queue bubba. BTW, I am proud of who I am, alone, I don't need partners. Why do you feel the need to be a peer to someone?

No evidence. Except downward LWIR.

in your dreams bubba.

 

[jc456]

[
and still no observed measured evidence. ta da...... right on queue bubba. BTW, I am proud of who I am, alone, I don't need partners. Why do you feel the need to be a peer to someone?

Must be frustrating to believe in something as fervently as they do and not have the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support it.

It's not frustrating to believe in modern physics.
It's even nice to agree with Einstein, Bohr, Planck et al.

Not at all lonely like your solo crusade.

and still no observed measured evidence Mr. Ricochet

BTW, I ran an experiment with a cup of hot coffee and Ice. I used tongs to hold Ice directly above the hot coffee. And you know what, the coffee cooled at the same rate with or without the ice. Hmmmm how is that?

And, the ice melted. observed.