Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Grumblenuts]

I am unable to open your jpg

Denialist!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Bro, I'm not a science cuck like you.

Nope, you're a jackass with poor vision.

 

[Crick]

You found it from the citation I provided, right?

No, I did a Google search on Manabe and Strickler 1964.

 

[Crick]

Oh, that citation. Yes, that was how I found it. But, you notice you provided no hyperlink. I did the search myself, found the paper and downloaded it. It is 25 pages long. So where the fuck is your page 362?

 

[Crick]

Nope, you're a jackass with poor vision.

Are you familiar with computers and the internet? Do you know how to copy and paste? Do you understand what a hyperlink is?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Are you familiar with computers and the internet? Do you know how to copy and paste? Do you understand what a hyperlink is?

Indeed.

 

[Crick]

Perhaps I missed it but I didn't see a link to your Manabe and Strickler 1964 paper. I found it myself and it looks to be an impressive piece of work (https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6401.pdf) but it is all a scan of a printed document and thus readable but not searchable and only to be copied by hand. Can you perhaps point out (page and paragraph) where you came across some of the specific points you have made from it?

You saw this because you attached a laughing face on it. Why did you then pretend that I had not seen your mention of this paper? You consistently lie about me to boost your ego. Truly pathetic of you.

 

[Crick]

Indeed.

I thought so. But, apparently Ding is not!!

 

[Crick]

You found it from the citation I provided, right?

Please provide a link to where we would find a page 362 in paper by Manabe and Strickler 1964.

Or correct yourself.

 

[ding]

Please provide a link to where we would find a page 362 in paper by Manabe and Strickler 1964.

Earlier you made it sound like you downloaded their paper. You actually never looked at it, did you? Be honest.

 

[ding]

Or correct yourself.

What's to correct?

Manabe and Strickler (1964) calculated the global-average strength of the “greenhouse effect” on surface temperatures assuming all energy transfers were radiative (no weather processes), based upon the theory of how infrared energy courses through the atmosphere. They found that the surface of the Earth would average a whopping 75 deg. C warmer than if there was no greenhouse effect. But in reality, the surface of the Earth averages about 33 deg. C warmer, not 75 deg. C warmer than a no-greenhouse Earth. That’s because convective air currents (which create weather) carry excess heat away from the surface, cooling it well below its full greenhouse effect value represented by their imagined “pure radiative energy equilibrium” assumption.

 

[Grumblenuts]

This was to ding:

You live in a very simple world, don't you. And are you now claiming that YOU did the calculations?

The paper I downloaded was 25 pages.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6401.pdf

Thermal Equilibrium of the Planet with a Convective Adjustment
Manabe and Strickler, December 1963.

And I've gone back to post #2501 and find NO links in any post of yours.

That's clearly the one, only "the Atmosphere" rather than "the Planet"
", in revised form 13 April 1964}" and "July 1964" and "p. 361" at top.

All long out of date and nothing even suggestive of being left unconsidered by the IPCC nor climate scientists in general.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Here's where ding clearly copy and pastes from:

GW 101 « Roy Spencer, PhD

And here's the real Roy Spencer:

Climate misinformation by source: Roy Spencer

Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.

skepticalscience.com

 

[Crick]

This was to ding:

That's clearly the one, only "the Atmosphere" rather than "the Planet"
", in revised form 13 April 1964}" and "July 1964" and "p. 361" at top.

All long out of date and nothing even suggestive of being left unconsidered by the IPCC nor climate scientists in general.

The document I found was in a NOAA library. AHH, I see the page 361 at the top of page 1. Look at me going off half-cocked. I'll have a look and see what I can see.

 

[Grumblenuts]

What's to correct?

Manabe and Strickler (1964) calculated the global-average strength of the “greenhouse effect” on surface temperatures assuming all energy transfers were radiative (no weather processes), based upon the theory of how infrared energy courses through the atmosphere. They found that the surface of the Earth would average a whopping 75 deg. C warmer than if there was no greenhouse effect. But in reality, the surface of the Earth averages about 33 deg. C warmer, not 75 deg. C warmer than a no-greenhouse Earth. That’s because convective air currents (which create weather) carry excess heat away from the surface, cooling it well below its full greenhouse effect value represented by their imagined “pure radiative energy equilibrium” assumption.

"What's to correct?"
You could credit Roy Spencer (link), for starters:

Manabe and Strickler (1964) calculated the global-average strength of the “greenhouse effect” on surface temperatures assuming all energy transfers were radiative (no weather processes), based upon the theory of how infrared energy courses through the atmosphere. They found that the surface of the Earth would average a whopping 75 deg. C warmer than if there was no greenhouse effect. But in reality, the surface of the Earth averages about 33 deg. C warmer, not 75 deg. C warmer than a no-greenhouse Earth. That’s because convective air currents (which create weather) carry excess heat away from the surface, cooling it well below its full greenhouse effect value represented by their imagined “pure radiative energy equilibrium” assumption.

..you plagiarizing POS.

 

[ding]

"What's to correct?"
You could credit Roy Spencer (link), for starters:

..you plagiarizing POS.

Not at all. You pussies always blow a gasket anytime his name is mentioned. And ignore the factual information he provides. You're a real ****.

 

[ding]

Oh, that citation. Yes, that was how I found it. But, you notice you provided no hyperlink. I did the search myself, found the paper and downloaded it. It is 25 pages long. So where the fuck is your page 362?

The link from google that I used didn't take me to a website. It downloaded the pdf to my computer so nothing to link to. The citation I used was valid. You fuckers nitpick everything. Dismiss off hand anything from Curry or Spencer and are real *****.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You fuckers nitpick everything. Dismiss off hand anything from Curry or Spencer

When in doubt, project yourself!

I'm sure Spencer (if he's still around) understands your dire predicament and prefers you plagiarize his stuff rather than credit him.

 

[Crick]

The document I found was in a NOAA library. AHH, I see the page 361 at the top of page 1. Look at me going off half-cocked. I'll have a look and see what I can see.

What I see is nothing on page 362 that would produce numbers.

 

[Crick]

The link from google that I used didn't take me to a website. It downloaded the pdf to my computer so nothing to link to. The citation I used was valid.

It didn't take you to a website? Don't be an idiot. It took you to a website which provided you that pdf. Just because it did nothing else doesn't mean it wasn't a website.

When you put Manabe and Strickler 1964 into Google, you get eleven different URLs on the first page. There is no guarantee that your readers are going to the same site as you. That's one of the reasons you provide the fucking link. I had no problem doing that.

You fuckers nitpick everything. Dismiss off hand anything from Curry or Spencer and are real *****.

It's not unreasonable to dismiss out of hand the word of known liars.