Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

[Olde Europe]

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.

Long range predictions are always kind of hard. The biggest unknown variable is, of course, how humankind will react to the challenge at hand, whether it is prepared to reduce CO2 emissions, and how much. Of course, ice melt is subject to a variety of parameters, such as changing ocean currents, that are highly uncertain. So, yes, predictions of climate consequences are rather hard. Agreed. The point remains, the general direction into which we're heading, more weather extremes, killer heat waves near the equator, droughts and floodings, rising sea levels, and a variety of impacts on fragile ecosystems, isn't really in doubt, even if the figures behind the decimal point, and the exact details of qualitative changes, aren't all that certain.

 

[Crick]

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..

Good god are you stupid.

 

[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.

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

I've got an engineering degree. You don't. You don't seem to have a degree at all. I think it's extremely likely that I understand circuit theory better than you do, particularly if you think QM is required to explain it.

But, hey, I could always be wrong. Why don't you give us the QM explanation for a capacitor and I'll make certain you didn't copy it from some website.

 

[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.

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.

So go ahead buckwheet...tell us how an instrument measuring temperature change of an internal thermopile can detect a discrete wavelength...this should be interesting..

 

[jc456]

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..

Good god are you stupid.

 

[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.

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.

So go ahead buckwheet...tell us how an instrument measuring temperature change of an internal thermopile can detect a discrete wavelength...this should be interesting..

I've got a better idea, jackass. Why don't you show us where I said those instruments produced those plots? Eh?

 

[SSDD]

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..

Good god are you stupid.

Alas, crick..it is you who is stupid...perhaps you would like to elaborate on how an instrument that only measures the temperature change of an internal thermopile managed to produce that absorption spectra graphic...and by the way...absorption spectra are not measurements of downwelling radiation...

So this is a description of their instrumentation...from their web site...
Since the terrain, an irrigated cotton field, could not be considered homogeneous, radiation measurements were made at nine sites using a variety of radiation instruments, including pyranometers, pyrgeometers and net radiometers.

All you have provided is further evidence of climate scientists fooling themselves with their own instrumentation.

 

[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.

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.

So go ahead buckwheet...tell us how an instrument measuring temperature change of an internal thermopile can detect a discrete wavelength...this should be interesting..

I've got a better idea, jackass. Why don't you show us where I said those instruments produced those plots? Eh?

You provided the picture showing the instrumentation from the dark horse site 7....was that just to show that instruments were used even though you don't have a clue as to what they are actually for?

 

[Crick]

It was for jc's edification. He seems to think all such data are produced by monkeys with crayons. You on the other hand pretend to know when you don't and then lie. You are the LAST person around here I feel any need to satisfy

 

[jc456]

It was for jc's edification. He seems to think all such data are produced by monkeys with crayons. You on the other hand pretend to know when you don't and then lie. You are the LAST person around here I feel any need to satisfy

Well those are really well trained monkeys. Box of 64 colors from crayola?

 

[SSDD]

It was for jc's edification. He seems to think all such data are produced by monkeys with crayons. You on the other hand pretend to know when you don't and then lie. You are the LAST person around here I feel any need to satisfy

You provided the picture...and apparently you were just lying to JC in an attempt to trick him...typical...

 

[SSDD]

It was for jc's edification. He seems to think all such data are produced by monkeys with crayons. You on the other hand pretend to know when you don't and then lie. You are the LAST person around here I feel any need to satisfy

Well those are really well trained monkeys. Box of 64 colors from crayola?

Climate science doesn't use them all...they only use the warm colors for their projects...up till now, that was the only way to keep the money flowing in...I suppose now that they are going to have to be honest and do actual science that can be replicated by other scientists and provide their data...they will be using the cooler colors in the future.

 

[Crick]

Wanna bet? I'd love to take your money. Just watching you shown wrong over and over and over again is getting old. We should make it more interesting... and profitable.

 

[polarbear]

It was for jc's edification. He seems to think all such data are produced by monkeys with crayons. You on the other hand pretend to know when you don't and then lie. You are the LAST person around here I feel any need to satisfy

Well those are really well trained monkeys. Box of 64 colors from crayola?

Climate science doesn't use them all...they only use the warm colors for their projects...up till now, that was the only way to keep the money flowing in...I suppose now that they are going to have to be honest and do actual science that can be replicated by other scientists and provide their data...they will be using the cooler colors in the future.

Crick the "engineer" posted this graph:

And Crick the "engineer" would be able to tell you from that,..:
Oct 3, ~ 290 w/m^2 at 12 noon means it was -- 5 Celsius
same date, midnight 330 w/m^2 means it warmed up by 8 deg to +3
Then on the next day
Oct 4, 310 w/m^2 it has cooled down from +3 to -- 1 C at high noon
and warmed up again during the night to + 11 C (370w/m^)
Billings OK reports an average of ~ +15 C for that time frame..
So according to that downward radiation and "engineer" Crick there was quite the negative temperature anomaly recorded in Billings OK.
The other graph he posted to make his point about back radiation is even more ridiculous.

He got all exited when he spotted the "W" on the Y- axis. While we are discussing Watts/m^2
Crick the "engineer" produced a plot that has the radiance in Watts per cm^2 per steradian...
and even then it amounts to only 8 e-8 watts per steradian and square centimeter.
There is no way that will budge a thermometer by 1 mark and you need a spectrophotometer with a photomultiplier to detect that minute amount.
What kind of engineer is he anyway? I remember him saying he is an "ocean engineer".
I suppose physics is a lot more complicated for somebody who is accustomed to count the clams that the tide left behind or playing with the sediment mud he scooped up.
If he [asks any woman] I`m pretty sure she would call an electrician to get her washing machine fixed because he has no idea what thingamajigs all these wires are connected to.
Yet he lectures us on how a spectrophotometer & the electronics inside one of these work.

 

[Crick]

I've done no such thing. And I'd ask you to leave my wife out of these discussions.

I have simply presented published graphs showing direct measurements of back radiation - something many of you claim does not exist. I think rather than attacking me, you ought to be explaining why these scientists were able to find IR radiation that precisely matches the emission spectra of CO2 and water vapor coming down out of the night sky. The first thing you might consider, particularly given its near-universal acceptance by mainstream science, is that your belief that no back radiation exists, is simply wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It was for jc's edification. He seems to think all such data are produced by monkeys with crayons. You on the other hand pretend to know when you don't and then lie. You are the LAST person around here I feel any need to satisfy

Well those are really well trained monkeys. Box of 64 colors from crayola?

Climate science doesn't use them all...they only use the warm colors for their projects...up till now, that was the only way to keep the money flowing in...I suppose now that they are going to have to be honest and do actual science that can be replicated by other scientists and provide their data...they will be using the cooler colors in the future.

Crick the "engineer" posted this graph:

And Crick the "engineer" would be able to tell you from that,..:
Oct 3, ~ 290 w/m^2 at 12 noon means it was -- 5 Celsius
same date, midnight 330 w/m^2 means it warmed up by 8 deg to +3
Then on the next day
Oct 4, 310 w/m^2 it has cooled down from +3 to -- 1 C at high noon
and warmed up again during the night to + 11 C (370w/m^)
Billings OK reports an average of ~ +15 C for that time frame..
So according to that downward radiation and "engineer" Crick there was quite the negative temperature anomaly recorded in Billings OK.
The other graph he posted to make his point about back radiation is even more ridiculous.

He got all exited when he spotted the "W" on the Y- axis. While we are discussing Watts/m^2
Crick the "engineer" produced a plot that has the radiance in Watts per cm^2 per steradian...
and even then it amounts to only 8 e-8 watts per steradian and square centimeter.
There is no way that will budge a thermometer by 1 mark and you need a spectrophotometer with a photomultiplier to detect that minute amount.
What kind of engineer is he anyway? I remember him saying he is an "ocean engineer".
I suppose physics is a lot more complicated for somebody who is accustomed to count the clams that the tide left behind or playing with the sediment mud he scooped up.
If he has a wife I`m pretty sure she would call an electrician to get her washing machine fixed because he has no idea what thingamajigs all these wires are connected to.
Yet he lectures us on how a spectrophotometer & the electronics inside one of these work.

And Crick the "engineer" would be able to tell you from that,..:
Oct 3, ~ 290 w/m^2 at 12 noon means it was -- 5 Celsius

What makes you think that's the temperature?

 

[jc456]

I've done no such thing. And I'd ask you to leave my wife out of these discussions.

I have simply presented published graphs showing direct measurements of back radiation - something many of you claim does not exist. I think rather than attacking me, you ought to be explaining why these scientists were able to find IR radiation that precisely matches the emission spectra of CO2 and water vapor coming down out of the night sky. The first thing you might consider, particularly given its near-universal acceptance by mainstream science, is that your belief that no back radiation exists, is simply wrong.

I believe what polar stated is you have no idea what you posted and should perhaps go back to engineering school. It is how I read his post. Now, do you know exactly what you posted, or are you convinced monkeys made the graphs with crayons?

 

[polarbear]

I've done no such thing. And I'd ask you to leave my wife out of these discussions.

I have simply presented published graphs showing direct measurements of back radiation - something many of you claim does not exist. I think rather than attacking me, you ought to be explaining why these scientists were able to find IR radiation that precisely matches the emission spectra of CO2 and water vapor coming down out of the night sky. The first thing you might consider, particularly given its near-universal acceptance by mainstream science, is that your belief that no back radiation exists, is simply wrong.

Sure, I have no intention to belittle [anyone...] smart enough to know that you don`t know anything about a simple thing like a washing machine.
About these "scientists"...I can leave them out of it just like [personal references as requested], because any trained monkey can switch on a Perkin Elmer IR spec and rip off the paper that came out of the strip chart recorder.
There is nothing amazing about a spectrophotometer being able to scan a wave band by turning the monochromater and a photomultiplier detecting the light.
What is amazing is the technology it takes to etch an optically perfect mirror with all these perfectly aligned grooves and the science and engineering it took to make a photomultiplier.
These "scientists" that planted these spectrophotometers on tripods in a farmers field in Oklahoma know just as little about the inner workings of these instruments as you do about the inner workings of a washing machine.
I don`t know w.t.f you are ranting about me and "back"-radiation.
Nobody I know, ever stated that there is no thermal radiation and that it is not dissipated into all possible directions or that it is not depending on temperature.
It`s the "back" (energy gain) that is being disputed not the radiation.
Stefan Boltzmann could not have imagined that his simple equation can crash so many simple brains that should not be so many if science were not taught by simple minded affirmative action& equal opportunity university graduates.
I just finished an exchange with this toddster guy in Skook`s thread how stupidly you "back"wards guys use the StB equation on 2 different temperatures in a backward way to get a final temperature....and here he is again with the same stupid questions.
He is cracking jokes about "smart" photons while he needs photons with a birth certificate that tells him where all these photons came from after a cooler body lessened the cooling rate of a warmer one which is being baked by the sun.
He can tell you which and how many photons the warmer body got from the colder one and which & how many came from the sun after the cooler body got just as warm as the other one.
I could tell you what winds up where in terms of wattsec, but not in terms of photons( like Toddster can ), unless you or him have found a way to overcome Werner Heisenberg`s uncertainty principle.
If you take a photon into the cross-hairs to see where it is when,.. then you have no idea what it`s momentum(vector) is there and then...not knowing the momentum means you don`t know the energy. In terms of watts you need a cross section (an area) that a large number of photons traverse at the same time and not a large number of photon cross-hair "dots" in different places at the same time. Having some trouble visualizing it? Maybe they got a pretty gif image of that concept somewhere on the net. Go fish !

 

[mamooth]

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

I never said any such thing.

If you're not lying, you'll be able to show where I said that.

So man up and do so, or apologize.

 

[mamooth]

It`s the "back" (energy gain) that is being disputed not the radiation.

No, nobody except some addled cultists dispute that cooler objects can warm warmer objects. That's basic science and simple common sense.

Stefan Boltzmann could not have imagined that his simple equation can crash so many simple brains that should not be so many if science were not taught by simple minded affirmative action& equal opportunity university graduates.

So were you an affirmative action baby? After all, you do misunderstand the very simple SB equation.

He is cracking jokes about "smart" photons

Because your theory requires smart photons. That's why it's obviously a crackpot theory.

If you take a photon into the cross-hairs to see where it is when then you have no idea what it`s momentum(vector) is there and then..

That was your "Let me retype some commonly known science which has no relevance so I can pretend to be smart" thing. It's not pertinent to the topic under discussion.

The topic is your claim that a cooler object can't warm a warmer object, something disproved by theory, experiment and common sense.