Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Crick]

CO2 requires a secondary molecule that will absorb and warm up. They thought they had this with water. But it didn't play well with CO2 and has been observed as a negative forcing.

Show us some support for this nonsense you coward. If you can't, think about giving up your practice of posting absurd unsupportable bullshit on your apparent belief that the world is filled with people stupider than you are.

Still waiting.

 

[Crick]

So here it is: the H2O scores 4786.5 watts/m^2 and the CO2 back radiation is what?

Less.

Was there any point to that?

Zero is certainly less...

Which is the precise amount of evidence you've provided to support you insane contentions.

 

[polarbear]

So here it is: the H2O scores 4786.5 watts/m^2 and the CO2 back radiation is what?

Less.

Was there any point to that?

Less you say?
Was there any point to that? you ask
You just made that point that we have less influence on the climate than H2O vapor.
But you take the 5th amendment to make a definitive statement how much less.
I`ll make it easier for you:
4788/ X = ?
Pick a number for X
You don`t want to?
Your skeptical science asshole says it`s 1.66
How much less is that?

 

[mamooth]

You just made that point that we have less influence on the climate than H2O vapor.

No, I didn't. And you didn't either.

If you think you did, explain how.

You showed water vapor can transport heat upwards.

Congrats. Everyone else has known that for a long, long time. It's been a staple of climate science and every climate model. It's been taken into account in excruciating detail.

Why did you think it was news?

 

[Wuwei]

So we can also conclude that you are unable to read what a person writes and understand what is being said?...When did I ever say that water vapor is the complete explanation for the earth's temperature?

And it is a good thing that back radiation is not needed as there is no such thing....

The very idea of a radiative greenhouse effect being responsible for the temperature of a convective atmosphere is stupidity of the highest order...you glassy eyed chanting cultists are heading right over the AGW cliff...actual science will sooner or later step in and hand climate science the slap down it so richly deserves..

You are lying, Troll.

In the end, we will all see that you glassy eyed chanting cultists are the liars....actual science will win out over political expediency in the end

You can't pull that crap on me. I really don't believe that current climate science has any predictive powers. We can't even predict the weather all that well a few days in advance. All I'm saying here is that your ability to understand science is crap. If you want to disbelieve climate science, so be it. But when you substitute crap science that you pick up from blogs, you become the glassy eyed chanting cultist. You have an amazing obsession to invent crap science to support your belief.

 

[polarbear]

You just made that point that we have less influence on the climate than H2O vapor.

No, I didn't. And you didn't either.

If you think you did, explain how.

You showed water vapor can transport heat upwards.

Congrats. Everyone else has known that for a long, long time. It's been a staple of climate science and every climate model. It's been taken into account in excruciating detail.

Why did you think it was news?

It`s not news, at least not to everyone else who isn`t in the group of idiots who insist that IR radiation is the only process that "can transport heat upwards"...like you`ve been saying until just now

 

[jc456]

So here it is: the H2O scores 4786.5 watts/m^2 and the CO2 back radiation is what?

Less.

Was there any point to that?

Zero is certainly less...

Which is the precise amount of evidence you've provided to support you insane contentions.

Ditto

 

[jc456]

You just made that point that we have less influence on the climate than H2O vapor.

No, I didn't. And you didn't either.

If you think you did, explain how.

You showed water vapor can transport heat upwards.

Congrats. Everyone else has known that for a long, long time. It's been a staple of climate science and every climate model. It's been taken into account in excruciating detail.

Why did you think it was news?

He did explain his point and how, your turn now

 

[Crick]

So here it is: the H2O scores 4786.5 watts/m^2 and the CO2 back radiation is what?

Less.

Was there any point to that?

Zero is certainly less...

Which is the precise amount of evidence you've provided to support you insane contentions.

Ditto

"The Physical Science Basis" contains over 1,800 pages of evidence that supports (and is the origin of) my view.

 

[jc456]

So here it is: the H2O scores 4786.5 watts/m^2 and the CO2 back radiation is what?

Less.

Was there any point to that?

Zero is certainly less...

Which is the precise amount of evidence you've provided to support you insane contentions.

Ditto

"The Physical Science Basis" contains over 1,800 pages of evidence that supports (and is the origin of) my view.

Good for you! Now post evidence of back radiation

 

[Crick]

I have posted direct measurements of it. Repeatedly.

If you ask for this again jc, I will, with complete justification, tell you to fuck off.

 

[Olde Europe]

You can't pull that crap on me.

Why would the troll you're feeding care what he can pull, or not?

I really don't believe that current climate science has any predictive powers. We can't even predict the weather all that well a few days in advance.

That's a rather surprising mis-comment coming from you. Weather is chaotic, and thus inherently hard to predict. Climate in the end is just the result of an energy balance, radiation in vs. radiation out, and thus far more predictable than weather. In case you referred to making predictions of changing weather patterns as brought about by a changing climate, you'd have far more of a point, but still, as worded, your comment doesn't hold up. That said, I, for one, am quite convinced of climate science's predictive powers, even while they're providing ranges of uncertainty - or rather because of that.

 

[jc456]

I have posted direct measurements of it. Repeatedly.

If you ask for this again jc, I will, with complete justification, tell you to fuck off.

Well again, if there were any measurements it was done using a cooled receiver which proves absolutely nothing

 

[SSDD]

I have posted direct measurements of it. Repeatedly.

If you ask for this again jc, I will, with complete justification, tell you to fuck off.

What a dupe...that's all I can say...what a dupe...did you even look at the instruments in use at site 7 (dark horse)?

Pyrometer...it measures solar irradiance between 0.3 μm and 3 μm.
Pyrogeometer..the only thing that instrument is measuring is the temperature change of an internal thermopile..
Net Radiometer...again..measuring nothing but the temperature change of an internal thermopile...

Not a single one of those instruments is capable of measuring a discrete wavelength.

All your graphs are simply made up...none of the instruments in use are capable of generating them...fake news...fake science...all fake all the time..

 

[SSDD]

I have posted direct measurements of it. Repeatedly.

If you ask for this again jc, I will, with complete justification, tell you to fuck off.

Well again, if there were any measurements it was done using a cooled receiver which proves absolutely nothing

None of the instruments employed at site 7 (dark horse) were capable of producing those graphs...they are fake in so far as his claim goes...one of them measures nothing more than solar irradiance and the other two measure nothing more than temperature changes of an internal thermopile...if you want to measure a discrete wavelength which his top two graphs show, you must have an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....fake science...fake results...all fake all the time..

 

[Billy_Bob]

The quantum level mechanics behind the function of a capacitor? HAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaa, what a marOON.

Were you perhaps thinking of something a little more like an STM?

good at throwing insults but no facts or science..

 

[RollingThunder]

I have posted direct measurements of it. Repeatedly.

If you ask for this again jc, I will, with complete justification, tell you to fuck off.

None of the instruments employed at site 7 (dark horse) were capable of producing those graphs...they are fake in so far as his claim goes...one of them measures nothing more than solar irradiance and the other two measure nothing more than temperature changes of an internal thermopile...if you want to measure a discrete wavelength which his top two graphs show, you must have an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....fake science...fake results...all fake all the time..

The usual quite insane and very crackpot denier cult claim that the uneducated, extremely ignorant, dumb-shit reality deniers are smarter and know more than all of the world's real scientists.....who write, peer-review, and read and comment on the scientific studies that generate the graphs Crick cited......and who agree with the experiments, techniques and methods of analysis used in those spectrum studies of greenhouse gas radiation.

SSoDDumb makes lots of ridiculous claims about climate science but can never back them up with any evidence, as he once again demonstrates.

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 requires a secondary molecule that will absorb and warm up. They thought they had this with water. But it didn't play well with CO2 and has been observed as a negative forcing.

Show us some support for this nonsense you coward. If you can't, think about giving up your practice of posting absurd unsupportable bullshit on your apparent belief that the world is filled with people stupider than you are.

Still waiting.

until you can tell me my a capacitor works you will be...

 

[Wuwei]

That's a rather surprising mis-comment coming from you. Weather is chaotic, and thus inherently hard to predict. Climate in the end is just the result of an energy balance, radiation in vs. radiation out, and thus far more predictable than weather. In case you referred to making predictions of changing weather patterns as brought about by a changing climate, you'd have far more of a point, but still, as worded, your comment doesn't hold up. That said, I, for one, am quite convinced of climate science's predictive powers, even while they're providing ranges of uncertainty - or rather because of that.

I agree. We do know the energy imbalance right now. It has been measured by satellite. It has not been predicted from a full knowledge of climate variables because it requires the subtraction of numbers that have error bars much larger than the subtracted value.

I'm referring to prediction of the climate as it will be about 100 years from now -- the rather wide range of uncertainty of ocean rise. I have seen estimates of about 0.5 m to 2.0 meters rise. I have no idea what values are credible. The question is whether it will be slow enough that there would not be a catastrophic adjustment. Long term extrapolation is always iffy in any complex science.

 

[Crick]

I don't know why folks get so concerned about the error bars. What are the odds the ocean is NOT rising? What are the odds it is actually getting lower? The answer to both is: extremely low. The odds that the ocean will follow the mean prediction are roughly 68%. We certainly know enough to act.