No Evidence

[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.

BTW, why is it that if I put a hot cup of coffee in a freezer, it won't get warmer, instead gets colder faster? My freezer has much more supposed IR than a cup of hot coffee.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

 

[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.

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.

And you know what, the coffee cooled at the same rate with or without the ice.

Excellent! Post your data table with temperature readings (0.1 degree should work) every minute.

Hmmmm how is that?

Poorly designed experiment.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

BTW, why is it that if I put a hot cup of coffee in a freezer, it won't get warmer, instead gets colder faster? My freezer has much more supposed IR than a cup of hot coffee.

BTW, why is it that if I put a hot cup of coffee in a freezer, it won't get warmer, instead gets colder faster?

My freezer has much more supposed IR than a cup of hot coffee.

Why do you feel that?

 

[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.

And you know what, the coffee cooled at the same rate with or without the ice.

Excellent! Post your data table with temperature readings (0.1 degree should work) every minute.

Hmmmm how is that?

Poorly designed experiment.

oh now you want data. can't provide any on your cockamamie LWIR, but you want mine. so typical.

 

[jc456]

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.

BTW, why is it that if I put a hot cup of coffee in a freezer, it won't get warmer, instead gets colder faster? My freezer has much more supposed IR than a cup of hot coffee.

BTW, why is it that if I put a hot cup of coffee in a freezer, it won't get warmer, instead gets colder faster?

View attachment 235399

My freezer has much more supposed IR than a cup of hot coffee.

Why do you feel that?

dude, I just gave you what will happen put a cup of coffee in a freezer, doesn't get warmer. show me where it would. Tell you what, you fill out your equation and show me.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Got any measurement of discrete wavelengths of downward LWIR made with an instrument at ambient temperature? Didn't think so....yet another example of lack of observed, measured evidence.

 

[IanC]

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.

BTW, why is it that if I put a hot cup of coffee in a freezer, it won't get warmer, instead gets colder faster? My freezer has much more supposed IR than a cup of hot coffee.

BTW, why is it that if I put a hot cup of coffee in a freezer, it won't get warmer, instead gets colder faster?

View attachment 235399

My freezer has much more supposed IR than a cup of hot coffee.

Why do you feel that?

dude, I just gave you what will happen put a cup of coffee in a freezer, doesn't get warmer. show me where it would. Tell you what, you fill out your equation and show me.

Put three identical cups of coffee in a freezer, fridge and counter top. Come back in five minutes. They will all have cooled. Especially the one in the freezer because it is getting the least amount of energy returned from its surroundings.

Could it be any simpler?

 

[Wuwei]

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 again!! You heard it from many people many times, and you want it explained again!! You just stated that you have a hard set bias against the science.

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.

I already told you the what the equation reads. It's the same as the Dartmouth and hyperphysics text that you were given more than once.

Woweee! you sound like a sassy petulant child, "I'm not going to tell you until you say the magic word. nanner naner." You have been stalling for time for weeks to think up something stupid like resonance frequencies.

Did you every figure out where all the15,700 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.

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.

You are afraid to say which steps you think are wrong. And yes there is evidence.
You are an empty peevish troll. You loose.

 

[SSDD]

Explain again!! You heard it from many people many times, and you want it explained again!! You just stated that you have a hard set bias against the science.

So you have no idea how that misunderstanding of yours, even if it were correct, challenges any of the statements in the OP. Of course you don't, because it doesn't.

If you were right, and you aren't, would that 3k energy hitting an antenna cause warming in the atmosphere? Any evidence of that? Of course not. It certainly doesn't favor the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and it isn't a paper in which the hypothetical warming is empirically quantified and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses.

I asked you to explain and you can't...nor have you..but if you think you have, by all means, in which post did you do it? Again, I am confident that you won't name a post because once again...you are just talking out of your ass making claims that you can't support. Same shit different day with you and all like you.

I already told you the what the equation reads. It's the same as the Dartmouth and hyperphysics text that you were given more than once.

No you didn't.. you told me what you wish it read...you tacked on an unproven opinion to the equation which is not part of the equation...again, you will lie, or whatever else is necessary rather than simply face the truth of what that equation says.

Did you every figure out where all the15,700 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.

Dodging to venus as if that were going to challenge any of the statements I made in the OP...if the evidence exists, don't you think it would exist here?

One note on venus....if you actually look at venus, you will see that 18 doublings of CO2 is required to get us to the same concentration of CO2 that venus has...The greenhouse equations state that each doubling of CO2 will result in an energy increase of 3.7 W/m2.... Presently at 15C we are talking about roughly 396 W/m2..venus, at 430C requires around 16,500W/m2. How many doublings of CO2 at 3.7 watts per doubling are required to reach 16,500 W/m2?

Here is a clue...it is a hell of a lot more than 18...it is thousands...your greenhouse venus falsifies your greenhouse equations...but proves the ideal gas law. Now back to topic.

You are afraid to say which steps you think are wrong. And yes there is evidence.
You are an empty peevish troll. You loose.

So that's a no...you don't have any actual evidence...If the model were correct, don't you think there would be abundant observed, measured, physical evidence to support it?

 

[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.

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.

And you know what, the coffee cooled at the same rate with or without the ice.

Excellent! Post your data table with temperature readings (0.1 degree should work) every minute.

Hmmmm how is that?

Poorly designed experiment.

oh now you want data. can't provide any on your cockamamie LWIR, but you want mine. so typical.

oh now you want data.

Well, if you're going to reject my data with something more than just your feelings then yes, I want data.

can't provide any on your cockamamie LWIR

Only if you ignore all the data and all the physical laws. Epicycles, eh?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

BTW, why is it that if I put a hot cup of coffee in a freezer, it won't get warmer, instead gets colder faster? My freezer has much more supposed IR than a cup of hot coffee.

BTW, why is it that if I put a hot cup of coffee in a freezer, it won't get warmer, instead gets colder faster?

View attachment 235399

My freezer has much more supposed IR than a cup of hot coffee.

Why do you feel that?

dude, I just gave you what will happen put a cup of coffee in a freezer, doesn't get warmer. show me where it would. Tell you what, you fill out your equation and show me.

dude, I just gave you what will happen put a cup of coffee in a freezer, doesn't get warmer.

Dude, please let me know who ever told you it would get warmer. Link?

Tell you what, you fill out your equation and show me.

The equation says it gets colder.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Got any measurement of discrete wavelengths of downward LWIR made with an instrument at ambient temperature? Didn't think so....yet another example of lack of observed, measured evidence.

Got any measurement of discrete wavelengths of downward LWIR made with an instrument at ambient temperature?

Ambient temp? Why?

Didn't think so....yet another example of lack of observed, measured evidence.

Did you ever post your observed, measured evidence proving one way only flow of energy?
Or are we still dealing with your feelings?

 

[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?

No evidence. Except downward LWIR.

BTW, why is it that if I put a hot cup of coffee in a freezer, it won't get warmer, instead gets colder faster? My freezer has much more supposed IR than a cup of hot coffee.

BTW, why is it that if I put a hot cup of coffee in a freezer, it won't get warmer, instead gets colder faster?

View attachment 235399

My freezer has much more supposed IR than a cup of hot coffee.

Why do you feel that?

dude, I just gave you what will happen put a cup of coffee in a freezer, doesn't get warmer. show me where it would. Tell you what, you fill out your equation and show me.

Put three identical cups of coffee in a freezer, fridge and counter top. Come back in five minutes. They will all have cooled. Especially the one in the freezer because it is getting the least amount of energy returned from its surroundings.

Could it be any simpler?

LOL, you believe that cool warms warm objects and you write this bullshit? Ian, you are a fool for believing that the atmosphere warms the surface by 2x the sun. Amazing. the atmosphere allows the heat to escape, but you are too entrapped in the pseudo science to acknowledge it. shame.

 

[jc456]

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.

Got any measurement of discrete wavelengths of downward LWIR made with an instrument at ambient temperature? Didn't think so....yet another example of lack of observed, measured evidence.

Got any measurement of discrete wavelengths of downward LWIR made with an instrument at ambient temperature?

Ambient temp? Why?

Didn't think so....yet another example of lack of observed, measured evidence.

Did you ever post your observed, measured evidence proving one way only flow of energy?
Or are we still dealing with your feelings?

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.

BTW, why is it that if I put a hot cup of coffee in a freezer, it won't get warmer, instead gets colder faster? My freezer has much more supposed IR than a cup of hot coffee.

BTW, why is it that if I put a hot cup of coffee in a freezer, it won't get warmer, instead gets colder faster?

View attachment 235399

My freezer has much more supposed IR than a cup of hot coffee.

Why do you feel that?

dude, I just gave you what will happen put a cup of coffee in a freezer, doesn't get warmer. show me where it would. Tell you what, you fill out your equation and show me.

Put three identical cups of coffee in a freezer, fridge and counter top. Come back in five minutes. They will all have cooled. Especially the one in the freezer because it is getting the least amount of energy returned from its surroundings.

Could it be any simpler?

you must be walking your shit back here eh?

 

[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?

No evidence. Except downward LWIR.

BTW, why is it that if I put a hot cup of coffee in a freezer, it won't get warmer, instead gets colder faster? My freezer has much more supposed IR than a cup of hot coffee.

BTW, why is it that if I put a hot cup of coffee in a freezer, it won't get warmer, instead gets colder faster?

View attachment 235399

My freezer has much more supposed IR than a cup of hot coffee.

Why do you feel that?

dude, I just gave you what will happen put a cup of coffee in a freezer, doesn't get warmer. show me where it would. Tell you what, you fill out your equation and show me.

dude, I just gave you what will happen put a cup of coffee in a freezer, doesn't get warmer.

Dude, please let me know who ever told you it would get warmer. Link?

Tell you what, you fill out your equation and show me.

The equation says it gets colder.

you and your peers in here. you must be having a SR. moment.

 

[jc456]

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.

Got any measurement of discrete wavelengths of downward LWIR made with an instrument at ambient temperature? Didn't think so....yet another example of lack of observed, measured evidence.

Got any measurement of discrete wavelengths of downward LWIR made with an instrument at ambient temperature?

Ambient temp? Why?

Didn't think so....yet another example of lack of observed, measured evidence.

Did you ever post your observed, measured evidence proving one way only flow of energy?
Or are we still dealing with your feelings?

Did you ever post your observed, measured evidence proving one way only flow of energy?
it's Mr. Ricochet I see. bing, bing, bing, toddsterrichochet. never provides any information useful to the discussion. dude, your a fking hoot,.

where's your observed measured data? still waiting.

 

[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?

No evidence. Except downward LWIR.

BTW, why is it that if I put a hot cup of coffee in a freezer, it won't get warmer, instead gets colder faster? My freezer has much more supposed IR than a cup of hot coffee.

BTW, why is it that if I put a hot cup of coffee in a freezer, it won't get warmer, instead gets colder faster?

View attachment 235399

My freezer has much more supposed IR than a cup of hot coffee.

Why do you feel that?

dude, I just gave you what will happen put a cup of coffee in a freezer, doesn't get warmer. show me where it would. Tell you what, you fill out your equation and show me.

Put three identical cups of coffee in a freezer, fridge and counter top. Come back in five minutes. They will all have cooled. Especially the one in the freezer because it is getting the least amount of energy returned from its surroundings.

Could it be any simpler?

so which one warms the fastest in the first minute? or do they cool? and which one cools the fastest in the first minute? what about five minutes? what about half an hour? and, do they cool fastest in the first minute or the last minute?

 

[Wuwei]

So you have no idea how that misunderstanding of yours, even if it were correct, challenges any of the statements in the OP. Of course you don't, because it doesn't.

If you were right, and you aren't, would that 3k energy hitting an antenna cause warming in the atmosphere? Any evidence of that? Of course not. It certainly doesn't favor the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and it isn't a paper in which the hypothetical warming is empirically quantified and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses.

You are acting as a dumb troll. You have been told that the cold 2.7 K cosmic EM radiation hits a much warmer antenna. That shows radiation energy from a cold source can hit a warmer object. That in turn shows back radiation happens. That invalidates your claim about CO2 not being a back-radiating GHG.

No you didn't.. you told me what you wish it read...you tacked on an unproven opinion to the equation which is not part of the equation...again, you will lie, or whatever else is necessary rather than simply face the truth of what that equation says.

Now you are lying through your teeth. I showed it was not my opinion since it was explicitly in the Dartmouth and Hyperphysics sites. Not only do you disbelieve basic science, but you are lying about what you think it is.

Dodging to venus as if that were going to challenge any of the statements I made in the OP...if the evidence exists, don't you think it would exist here?

One note on venus....if you actually look at venus, you will see that 18 doublings of CO2 is required to get us to the same concentration of CO2 that venus has...The greenhouse equations state that each doubling of CO2 will result in an energy increase of 3.7 W/m2.... Presently at 15C we are talking about roughly 396 W/m2..venus, at 430C requires around 16,500W/m2. How many doublings of CO2 at 3.7 watts per doubling are required to reach 16,500 W/m2?

Here is a clue...it is a hell of a lot more than 18...it is thousands...your greenhouse venus falsifies your greenhouse equations...but proves the ideal gas law. Now back to topic.

You don't understand the physics. Venus is illustrating an important aspect of radiation physics. If you don't understand the concentrated GHG on Venus, and where it's surface radiation goes, you can't possibly understand what is happening on earth. The premise of the OP is based on fallacy.

So that's a no...you don't have any actual evidence...If the model were correct, don't you think there would be abundant observed, measured, physical evidence to support it?

I see you are still afraid to state why you think irradiated CO2 can't warm the air. Each step is a fundamental law or aspect of basic physics which you despise.

The models of QM that you scorn very accurately describe behavior at atomic scales. You have never disproved the accuracy of those models. Never.

.

 

[jc456]

So you have no idea how that misunderstanding of yours, even if it were correct, challenges any of the statements in the OP. Of course you don't, because it doesn't.

If you were right, and you aren't, would that 3k energy hitting an antenna cause warming in the atmosphere? Any evidence of that? Of course not. It certainly doesn't favor the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, and it isn't a paper in which the hypothetical warming is empirically quantified and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses.

You are acting as a dumb troll. You have been told that the cold 2.7 K cosmic EM radiation hits a much warmer antenna. That shows radiation energy from a cold source can hit a warmer object. That in turn shows back radiation happens. That invalidates your claim about CO2 not being a back-radiating GHG.

No you didn't.. you told me what you wish it read...you tacked on an unproven opinion to the equation which is not part of the equation...again, you will lie, or whatever else is necessary rather than simply face the truth of what that equation says.

Now you are lying through your teeth. I showed it was not my opinion since it was explicitly in the Dartmouth and Hyperphysics sites. Not only do you disbelieve basic science, but you are lying about what you think it is.

Dodging to venus as if that were going to challenge any of the statements I made in the OP...if the evidence exists, don't you think it would exist here?

One note on venus....if you actually look at venus, you will see that 18 doublings of CO2 is required to get us to the same concentration of CO2 that venus has...The greenhouse equations state that each doubling of CO2 will result in an energy increase of 3.7 W/m2.... Presently at 15C we are talking about roughly 396 W/m2..venus, at 430C requires around 16,500W/m2. How many doublings of CO2 at 3.7 watts per doubling are required to reach 16,500 W/m2?

Here is a clue...it is a hell of a lot more than 18...it is thousands...your greenhouse venus falsifies your greenhouse equations...but proves the ideal gas law. Now back to topic.

You don't understand the physics. Venus is illustrating an important aspect of radiation physics. If you don't understand the concentrated GHG on Venus, and where it's surface radiation goes, you can't possibly understand what is happening on earth. The premise of the OP is based on fallacy.

So that's a no...you don't have any actual evidence...If the model were correct, don't you think there would be abundant observed, measured, physical evidence to support it?

I see you are still afraid to state why you think irradiated CO2 can't warm the air. Each step is a fundamental law or aspect of basic physics which you despise.

The models of QM that you scorn very accurately describe behavior at atomic scales. You have never disproved the accuracy of those models. Never.

.

You are acting as a dumb troll. You have been told that the cold 2.7 K cosmic EM radiation hits a much warmer antenna.

Post one measurement then!!!! come on stalin, let's see your observed measurement.