Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

[Cosmos]

That "major" study (Lindzen) was debunked mostly because it only relies on data in the tropics, so it doesn't account for energy transfer to other latitudes plus some basic misunderstanding of thermodynamics by the author.

LOL...

Where is your hot spot supposed to be? Above the tropics and the equator...

You people have no shame. Move the goal posts when your lie is exposed....

I've never once mentioned a "hot spot". That's some bullshit of your own, not mine.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/acta22/acta22-ramanathan.pdf
Here you go

OK...lets continue.

Regarding his "measurements" of the thickness of the "greenhouse blanket"...what crap. Any claim of heat "trapping" ability of additional CO2, and the resulting reduction of outgoing long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere come with them an inherent necessity of an upper tropospheric hot spot. If energy is being trapped in the atmosphere, then that energy will have a fingerprint in the troposphere...trapped energy will produce a hot spot according to climate science. The fact is that there is no hot spot....

And if the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere were actually trapping energy, then the amount of energy leaving the earth at the top of the atmosphere would be reduced. It hasn't been. In fact, satellites have detected an increase in outgoing long wave radiation, and the increase has been going on for quite some time. Here, as measured by NOAA...

Next, your author goes into an analysis of how much CO2 we have added to the atmosphere...Do keep in mind that so far, no actual evidence and not a single paper has been published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses....so any effort to show our contribution to CO2 gasses as evidence that we are causing warming is nothing more than evidence of increased CO2 with a big assed assumption that more CO2 causes warming tacked on.

But lets look at the CO2 increases and our influence on them. He simply makes an assumption that we are the cause of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The actual published science tells an entirely different story. The published science says that our contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 is so vanishingly small that it is essentially undetectable in the background noise...



Here are numerous peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Then he goes on to note that it has warmed since the little ice age, and makes a big assed assumption that the reason that it has warmed is CO2...and as evidence that it is CO2, he points to an 18th century thought experiment... The fact is that every ice core ever done shows us that increased atmospheric CO2 is the result of warming temperatures, not the cause...

Hell your guy even calls the output of computer models "empirical evidence" NEWSFLASH...it isn't.

Thanks for trying, but alas, there is nothing there but assumption after assumption after assumption being called empirical evidence...he does provide some actual instrumental data, but that is nothing more than evidence that he is easily fooled by instrumentation. It is in the section where he supposedly shows measurements of back radiation...energy moving from the cooler atmosphere down to the warmer surface of the earth where said radiation actually warms the surface... Ever look at the second law of thermodynamics? Here...take a look:


Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Which part of that suggests that energy will move from the cooler atmosphere down to the warmer surface of the earth? He uses instruments that are cooled to a temperature of about -80F. He isn't measuring energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth...he is measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument....if you place an identical instrument with the cooling turned off right next to the cooled one, you will get no measurement of energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer instrument because according to the second law of thermodynamics (the mother of all physical laws) energy won't move spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object....

It is always interesting to see what passes for evidence among those who believe...at least this one isn't an opinion piece from a newspaper as most provide....it is at least pseudoscience masquerading as science.....

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration?

Can you stop repeating your moronic error?

Atmospheric CO2 concentration did not decline between 2007 and 2008.
CO2 levels in the atmosphere did not decline at any point in these charts.

 

[Billy_Bob]

That "major" study (Lindzen) was debunked mostly because it only relies on data in the tropics, so it doesn't account for energy transfer to other latitudes plus some basic misunderstanding of thermodynamics by the author.

LOL...

Where is your hot spot supposed to be? Above the tropics and the equator...

You people have no shame. Move the goal posts when your lie is exposed....

I've never once mentioned a "hot spot". That's some bullshit of your own, not mine.

lol

You truly are an IDIOT.... You dont even have a basic grasp of the Hypothesis..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/acta22/acta22-ramanathan.pdf
Here you go

OK...lets continue.

Regarding his "measurements" of the thickness of the "greenhouse blanket"...what crap. Any claim of heat "trapping" ability of additional CO2, and the resulting reduction of outgoing long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere come with them an inherent necessity of an upper tropospheric hot spot. If energy is being trapped in the atmosphere, then that energy will have a fingerprint in the troposphere...trapped energy will produce a hot spot according to climate science. The fact is that there is no hot spot....

And if the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere were actually trapping energy, then the amount of energy leaving the earth at the top of the atmosphere would be reduced. It hasn't been. In fact, satellites have detected an increase in outgoing long wave radiation, and the increase has been going on for quite some time. Here, as measured by NOAA...

Next, your author goes into an analysis of how much CO2 we have added to the atmosphere...Do keep in mind that so far, no actual evidence and not a single paper has been published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses....so any effort to show our contribution to CO2 gasses as evidence that we are causing warming is nothing more than evidence of increased CO2 with a big assed assumption that more CO2 causes warming tacked on.

But lets look at the CO2 increases and our influence on them. He simply makes an assumption that we are the cause of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The actual published science tells an entirely different story. The published science says that our contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 is so vanishingly small that it is essentially undetectable in the background noise...



Here are numerous peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Then he goes on to note that it has warmed since the little ice age, and makes a big assed assumption that the reason that it has warmed is CO2...and as evidence that it is CO2, he points to an 18th century thought experiment... The fact is that every ice core ever done shows us that increased atmospheric CO2 is the result of warming temperatures, not the cause...

Hell your guy even calls the output of computer models "empirical evidence" NEWSFLASH...it isn't.

Thanks for trying, but alas, there is nothing there but assumption after assumption after assumption being called empirical evidence...he does provide some actual instrumental data, but that is nothing more than evidence that he is easily fooled by instrumentation. It is in the section where he supposedly shows measurements of back radiation...energy moving from the cooler atmosphere down to the warmer surface of the earth where said radiation actually warms the surface... Ever look at the second law of thermodynamics? Here...take a look:


Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Which part of that suggests that energy will move from the cooler atmosphere down to the warmer surface of the earth? He uses instruments that are cooled to a temperature of about -80F. He isn't measuring energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth...he is measuring energy moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument....if you place an identical instrument with the cooling turned off right next to the cooled one, you will get no measurement of energy moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer instrument because according to the second law of thermodynamics (the mother of all physical laws) energy won't move spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object....

It is always interesting to see what passes for evidence among those who believe...at least this one isn't an opinion piece from a newspaper as most provide....it is at least pseudoscience masquerading as science.....

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

You still can't list any sources of spontaneous photon emissions in the Solar System, can you?

 

[Cosmos]

That "major" study (Lindzen) was debunked mostly because it only relies on data in the tropics, so it doesn't account for energy transfer to other latitudes plus some basic misunderstanding of thermodynamics by the author.

LOL...

Where is your hot spot supposed to be? Above the tropics and the equator...

You people have no shame. Move the goal posts when your lie is exposed....

I've never once mentioned a "hot spot". That's some bullshit of your own, not mine.

lol

You truly are an IDIOT.... You dont even have a basic grasp of the Hypothesis..

View attachment 269365

Actually, I do. And I've stated it clearly and simply. I don't need to post links to 50 phony blog sites and crackpots to prove that greenhouse effect is a valid mechanism.

 

[SSDD]

You morons come up with this kind of horseshit because you're too stupid and ill-informed to actually discuss facts.

Here's a simple quiz for you. If there is no greenhouse effect or heat-trapping effect by the atmosphere explain why the Earth's temperature at night does not plummet to -166 degF at night like on the Moon.

Here ya go dumbass...

1. The earths rotation allows heating of the surface.

2. The speed of earths rotation and the entropy time are such that we do not cool into -166k. Simply put the mass of the atmosphere and water content does not allow this this.


NOW you show us how a cooler atmosphere can warm the surface... I want to see how you get around the 2nd LAW..

At this point, he has completely missed the whole warming the surface part of the claimed mechanism...he apparently thinks that CO2 and methane, etc are absorbing radiation from the surface and storing it....holding it hostage so that it can't escape into space...thus far, he hasn't given any indication of what the gasses are doing with the energy other than some vague notion of "heating up"...

Ok. You dipshits realize we have earth-orbiting satellites now that can measure how much energy comes from the sun and how much bounces back from the earth, right? And they can do that in different wavelengths. So we can actually measure the greenhouse effect.

Or do we need to start all over and first prove that the earth is round?

You going to state the basic mechanism of how climate science claims the greenhouse effect works or not? Till you have at least that much that you actually understand, there is no place to go...if you want to discuss the science, then demonstrate that you have at least the most basic grasp of what the greenhouse effect is and how climate science says it works.

I'll just stick with my previous statement which was exactly correct. And I just posted a link to a NASA/ERBE factsheet which backs me up.

Sorry but it wasn't...it is one thing to not know something....it is another thing entirely to be willfully ignorant...

You said:

Energy that is re-radiated in the IR by Earth is absorbed by greenhouse gases like CO2, Methane, and Water Vapor instead of escaping into space. This warms the atmosphere and the ocean. The more the greenhouse gases, the more the warming. "Well-mixed" is not in the equation.

Climate science said:

To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

Think maybe you can spot the crucial factor you left out of your explanation of how the greenhouse effect works? Here is a HINT....it is in bold fuschia...(that's a color sort of like purple)

 

[SSDD]

That "major" study (Lindzen) was debunked mostly because it only relies on data in the tropics, so it doesn't account for energy transfer to other latitudes plus some basic misunderstanding of thermodynamics by the author.

LOL...

Where is your hot spot supposed to be? Above the tropics and the equator...

You people have no shame. Move the goal posts when your lie is exposed....

I've never once mentioned a "hot spot". That's some bullshit of your own, not mine.

lol

You truly are an IDIOT.... You dont even have a basic grasp of the Hypothesis..

View attachment 269365

Actually, I do. And I've stated it clearly and simply. I don't need to post links to 50 phony blog sites and crackpots to prove that greenhouse effect is a valid mechanism.

Sorry...but you didn't...you left out a critical part of the mechanism...if you can't demonstrate that you even understand the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect, there really isn't much to talk about since it is all over your head...if you don't grasp what is supposed to happen to the energy once a greenhouse gas molecule absorbs it, then everything you think you understand beyond that will be based on a misunderstanding of the absolute basics..ever hear the term error cascade? Look it up sometime.

 

[Cosmos]

Here ya go dumbass...

1. The earths rotation allows heating of the surface.

2. The speed of earths rotation and the entropy time are such that we do not cool into -166k. Simply put the mass of the atmosphere and water content does not allow this this.


NOW you show us how a cooler atmosphere can warm the surface... I want to see how you get around the 2nd LAW..

At this point, he has completely missed the whole warming the surface part of the claimed mechanism...he apparently thinks that CO2 and methane, etc are absorbing radiation from the surface and storing it....holding it hostage so that it can't escape into space...thus far, he hasn't given any indication of what the gasses are doing with the energy other than some vague notion of "heating up"...

Ok. You dipshits realize we have earth-orbiting satellites now that can measure how much energy comes from the sun and how much bounces back from the earth, right? And they can do that in different wavelengths. So we can actually measure the greenhouse effect.

Or do we need to start all over and first prove that the earth is round?

You going to state the basic mechanism of how climate science claims the greenhouse effect works or not? Till you have at least that much that you actually understand, there is no place to go...if you want to discuss the science, then demonstrate that you have at least the most basic grasp of what the greenhouse effect is and how climate science says it works.

I'll just stick with my previous statement which was exactly correct. And I just posted a link to a NASA/ERBE factsheet which backs me up.

Sorry but it wasn't...it is one thing to not know something....it is another thing entirely to be willfully ignorant...

You said:

Energy that is re-radiated in the IR by Earth is absorbed by greenhouse gases like CO2, Methane, and Water Vapor instead of escaping into space. This warms the atmosphere and the ocean. The more the greenhouse gases, the more the warming. "Well-mixed" is not in the equation.

Climate science said:

To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

Think maybe you can spot the crucial factor you left out of your explanation of how the greenhouse effect works? Here is a HINT....it is in bold fuschia...(that's a color sort of like purple)

That's what "Energy that is re-radiated in the IR by Earth" is, stupid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They measure it on the top of a volcano in Hawaii. It's been rapidly increasing. Faster than what natural processes can account for.

Measuring concentrations on top of an active volcano where out gassing occurs.... who's brain child was that?

LOL! You're a moron. As I thought.

Actually, and no surprise, it is you who is behind the times...In case you didn't hear, NASA put a satellite up in space whose primary mission is to measure CO2 across the entire globe...They named it OCO-2 and oddly enough, it doesn't tell the same story as the site on top of a f'ing volcano.

Here are some images from the satellite showing the variation across the globe...by the way, climate science told us that one of the reasons we could believe in the greenhouse hypothesis, was that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...have you noticed they aren't saying that any more?

No kidding? So CO2 concentration is not exactly the same all over the globe?? Knock me over with a feather.

And yet climate science has been telling us for decades that it is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere and that the radiative greenhouse effect relies on CO2 being a well mixed gas in the atmosphere....of course that is what they used to say till they found out that it wasn't a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...and true to the unfalsifiable hypothesis, they simply changed the narrative to suit whatever reality is.

and that the radiative greenhouse effect relies on CO2 being a well mixed gas in the atmosphere

You're lying.

 

[Billy_Bob]

That "major" study (Lindzen) was debunked mostly because it only relies on data in the tropics, so it doesn't account for energy transfer to other latitudes plus some basic misunderstanding of thermodynamics by the author.

LOL...

Where is your hot spot supposed to be? Above the tropics and the equator...

You people have no shame. Move the goal posts when your lie is exposed....

I've never once mentioned a "hot spot". That's some bullshit of your own, not mine.

lol

You truly are an IDIOT.... You dont even have a basic grasp of the Hypothesis..

View attachment 269365

Actually, I do. And I've stated it clearly and simply. I don't need to post links to 50 phony blog sites and crackpots to prove that greenhouse effect is a valid mechanism.

You fail to understand how the FEED BACK operates in our atmosphere. Without this crucial component, AGW is dead. The EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED EFFECT is one of DAMPENING by 1/2 (0.5). Until you understand how and why this is important, further discussions are fruitless efforts.

 

[Cosmos]

That "major" study (Lindzen) was debunked mostly because it only relies on data in the tropics, so it doesn't account for energy transfer to other latitudes plus some basic misunderstanding of thermodynamics by the author.

LOL...

Where is your hot spot supposed to be? Above the tropics and the equator...

You people have no shame. Move the goal posts when your lie is exposed....

I've never once mentioned a "hot spot". That's some bullshit of your own, not mine.

lol

You truly are an IDIOT.... You dont even have a basic grasp of the Hypothesis..

View attachment 269365

Actually, I do. And I've stated it clearly and simply. I don't need to post links to 50 phony blog sites and crackpots to prove that greenhouse effect is a valid mechanism.

You fail to understand how the FEED BACK operates in our atmosphere. Without this crucial component, AGW is dead. The EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED EFFECT is one of DAMPENING by 1/2 (0.5). Until you understand how and why this is important, further discussions are fruitless efforts.

Oh, by all means. Go ahead and explain it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here you go....paper after paper...report after report stating that CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...and although you aren't likely to understand the science, the claim is made as part of how there can be a radiative greenhouse effect... and all of these papers and all the rest got the idea that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere from the mona loa station...it isn't a well mixed gas, and every paper that made the claim that it was as part of their defense of a radiative greenhouse effect is rendered false by that one fact...

Yeah, ok. So it varies from 390 ppm to 410 ppm. That totally blows the Mauna Loa reading of 405 ppm out of the water and the entire theory is negated. Sure, stupid.

Don't you understand? If it's 405 ppm in every single parcel of atmosphere, IR can move from the atmosphere toward the surface.....but if it's 390 ppm in spots and 410 ppm in spots, IR is not allowed to move toward the surface.

Also....the 2nd Law tells IR photons they can only move away from the surface, not towards the surface. Clearly.

DURR......

 

[Darkwind]

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

If you have it....lets see it. If you don't....then lets hear your best excuse for not providing it.

99 reasons you deniers are idiots

99 One-Liners That Rebut Climate Change Denier Talking Points – Alternet.org

The alarmists list of 'appeals to authority and fallacy arguments'... Nice... Do you have ANY empirical evidence to back up ANY of these claims?

Spin spin spin, spin spin spin, lies bullshit propaganda

Enough about you.

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL...

Where is your hot spot supposed to be? Above the tropics and the equator...

You people have no shame. Move the goal posts when your lie is exposed....

I've never once mentioned a "hot spot". That's some bullshit of your own, not mine.

lol

You truly are an IDIOT.... You dont even have a basic grasp of the Hypothesis..

View attachment 269365

Actually, I do. And I've stated it clearly and simply. I don't need to post links to 50 phony blog sites and crackpots to prove that greenhouse effect is a valid mechanism.

You fail to understand how the FEED BACK operates in our atmosphere. Without this crucial component, AGW is dead. The EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED EFFECT is one of DAMPENING by 1/2 (0.5). Until you understand how and why this is important, further discussions are fruitless efforts.

Oh, by all means. Go ahead and explain it.

I already did and you ignored it...

Read this once more and maybe you will understand it..

The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

The hypothesis requires a hot spot of mass, that is warmer than the surface, be present in the atmosphere in order for the surface to be warmed.

No such animal exists.. And no such animal can exist in our atmosphere, in its current water controlled cycles.

Dr David Evans has done the empirical work disproving this.

View attachment 269344

Satellites even show that energy leaving is parallel with input from the sun. This means that there is no slowing of energy loss by CO2. Our temperature on earth is dependent on other factors.

Oh I know...cosmos wants to discuss the topic and at this point, he can't even state the basic mechanism for the hypothesized greenhouse effect, much less start to understand why it is a load of crap. I figured if I could at least get him past the opinion he was given, and into a real discussion about what the science actually says rather than what the media, activists, and politicians say, maybe he can make some progress....not likely, but hope springs eternal.

Of course the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science doesn't exist, but till he can at least understand what they are claiming, he can't even begin to understand why it simply isn't possible.

You morons come up with this kind of horseshit because you're too stupid and ill-informed to actually discuss facts.

Here's a simple quiz for you. If there is no greenhouse effect or heat-trapping effect by the atmosphere explain why the Earth's temperature at night does not plummet to -166 degF at night like on the Moon.

Here ya go dumbass...

1. The earths rotation allows heating of the surface.

2. The speed of earths rotation and the entropy time are such that we do not cool into -166k. Simply put the mass of the atmosphere and water content does not allow this this.


NOW you show us how a cooler atmosphere can warm the surface... I want to see how you get around the 2nd LAW..

NOW you show us how a cooler atmosphere can warm the surface... I want to see how you get around the 2nd LAW..

Does the 2nd Law say IR emitted by the atmosphere can't travel toward the surface?

 

[SSDD]

At this point, he has completely missed the whole warming the surface part of the claimed mechanism...he apparently thinks that CO2 and methane, etc are absorbing radiation from the surface and storing it....holding it hostage so that it can't escape into space...thus far, he hasn't given any indication of what the gasses are doing with the energy other than some vague notion of "heating up"...

Ok. You dipshits realize we have earth-orbiting satellites now that can measure how much energy comes from the sun and how much bounces back from the earth, right? And they can do that in different wavelengths. So we can actually measure the greenhouse effect.

Or do we need to start all over and first prove that the earth is round?

You going to state the basic mechanism of how climate science claims the greenhouse effect works or not? Till you have at least that much that you actually understand, there is no place to go...if you want to discuss the science, then demonstrate that you have at least the most basic grasp of what the greenhouse effect is and how climate science says it works.

I'll just stick with my previous statement which was exactly correct. And I just posted a link to a NASA/ERBE factsheet which backs me up.

Sorry but it wasn't...it is one thing to not know something....it is another thing entirely to be willfully ignorant...

You said:

Energy that is re-radiated in the IR by Earth is absorbed by greenhouse gases like CO2, Methane, and Water Vapor instead of escaping into space. This warms the atmosphere and the ocean. The more the greenhouse gases, the more the warming. "Well-mixed" is not in the equation.

Climate science said:

To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

Think maybe you can spot the crucial factor you left out of your explanation of how the greenhouse effect works? Here is a HINT....it is in bold fuschia...(that's a color sort of like purple)

That's what "Energy that is re-radiated in the IR by Earth" is, stupid.

Can you not read? It says, as clearly as is possible I think, that the greenhouse gasses absorb IR FROM THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH and then re radiate it BACK TO THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH... Which part of that are you having a hard time understanding?

The greenhouse effect says that the earth is warmed by the sun, then the earth radiates infrared away from its surface, then greenhouse gases absorb that radiation and RE RADIATE IT BACK TO THE SURFACE where that radiation further warms the surface resulting in more radiation emitting from the surface of the earth than it would radiate if there were no greenhouse gasses...

 

[Cosmos]

Here you go....paper after paper...report after report stating that CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...and although you aren't likely to understand the science, the claim is made as part of how there can be a radiative greenhouse effect... and all of these papers and all the rest got the idea that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere from the mona loa station...it isn't a well mixed gas, and every paper that made the claim that it was as part of their defense of a radiative greenhouse effect is rendered false by that one fact...

Yeah, ok. So it varies from 390 ppm to 410 ppm. That totally blows the Mauna Loa reading of 405 ppm out of the water and the entire theory is negated. Sure, stupid.

Don't you understand? If it's 405 ppm in every single parcel of atmosphere, IR can move from the atmosphere toward the surface.....but if it's 390 ppm in spots and 410 ppm in spots, IR is not allowed to move toward the surface.

Also....the 2nd Law tells IR photons they can only move away from the surface, not towards the surface. Clearly.

DURR......

Yeah. I was trying to explain that in my earth condom model. LOL.

 

[Cosmos]

Ok. You dipshits realize we have earth-orbiting satellites now that can measure how much energy comes from the sun and how much bounces back from the earth, right? And they can do that in different wavelengths. So we can actually measure the greenhouse effect.

Or do we need to start all over and first prove that the earth is round?

You going to state the basic mechanism of how climate science claims the greenhouse effect works or not? Till you have at least that much that you actually understand, there is no place to go...if you want to discuss the science, then demonstrate that you have at least the most basic grasp of what the greenhouse effect is and how climate science says it works.

I'll just stick with my previous statement which was exactly correct. And I just posted a link to a NASA/ERBE factsheet which backs me up.

Sorry but it wasn't...it is one thing to not know something....it is another thing entirely to be willfully ignorant...

You said:

Energy that is re-radiated in the IR by Earth is absorbed by greenhouse gases like CO2, Methane, and Water Vapor instead of escaping into space. This warms the atmosphere and the ocean. The more the greenhouse gases, the more the warming. "Well-mixed" is not in the equation.

Climate science said:

To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

Think maybe you can spot the crucial factor you left out of your explanation of how the greenhouse effect works? Here is a HINT....it is in bold fuschia...(that's a color sort of like purple)

That's what "Energy that is re-radiated in the IR by Earth" is, stupid.

Can you not read? It says, as clearly as is possible I think, that the greenhouse gasses absorb IR FROM THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH and then re radiate it BACK TO THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH... Which part of that are you having a hard time understanding?

The greenhouse effect says that the earth is warmed by the sun, then the earth radiates infrared away from its surface, then greenhouse gases absorb that radiation and RE RADIATE IT BACK TO THE SURFACE where that radiation further warms the surface resulting in more radiation emitting from the surface of the earth than it would radiate if there were no greenhouse gasses...

Well excuse the hell outta me. I didn't use exactly the same words as your talking points.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Here you go....paper after paper...report after report stating that CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...and although you aren't likely to understand the science, the claim is made as part of how there can be a radiative greenhouse effect... and all of these papers and all the rest got the idea that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere from the mona loa station...it isn't a well mixed gas, and every paper that made the claim that it was as part of their defense of a radiative greenhouse effect is rendered false by that one fact...

Yeah, ok. So it varies from 390 ppm to 410 ppm. That totally blows the Mauna Loa reading of 405 ppm out of the water and the entire theory is negated. Sure, stupid.

Don't you understand? If it's 405 ppm in every single parcel of atmosphere, IR can move from the atmosphere toward the surface.....but if it's 390 ppm in spots and 410 ppm in spots, IR is not allowed to move toward the surface.

Also....the 2nd Law tells IR photons they can only move away from the surface, not towards the surface. Clearly.

DURR......

The 2nd law is clear. Energy can not move from a cooler object to a warmer one.

That being said, I differ with SSDD in that I acknowledge that all matter radiates in all directions above 0 Kelvin. But I also acknowledge that photons are particles and thus mass, which when they collide with other masses (which are warmer) must be warmed to that new masses temperature, consuming energy, and cooling the larger mass.

SO Tell me Todd, how do you think this plays out? Any other outcome violates the 2nd law..

 

[Cosmos]

I've never once mentioned a "hot spot". That's some bullshit of your own, not mine.

lol

You truly are an IDIOT.... You dont even have a basic grasp of the Hypothesis..

View attachment 269365

Actually, I do. And I've stated it clearly and simply. I don't need to post links to 50 phony blog sites and crackpots to prove that greenhouse effect is a valid mechanism.

You fail to understand how the FEED BACK operates in our atmosphere. Without this crucial component, AGW is dead. The EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED EFFECT is one of DAMPENING by 1/2 (0.5). Until you understand how and why this is important, further discussions are fruitless efforts.

Oh, by all means. Go ahead and explain it.

I already did and you ignored it...

Read this once more and maybe you will understand it..

The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans

No you didn't. Explain it in two sentences or less in your own words. I don't give a fuck about your blogger's opinion. I'm not talking to him.