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

[Cosmos]

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...

This is the problem.. The atmosphere is COOLER than the surface. How exactly does it warm it? The absence of a warmer area capable of this warming is necessary, without it AGW dies..

You're an incredible knucklehead. The earth has an energy balance. How much energy it receives, how much is stored, how much is radiated back into space. It's always being warmed by the sun at a fairly constant flux. How much energy is radiated to space is regulated by greenhouse gases, among other things. The difference is how much is stored. The stronger the greenhouse effect, the more energy is stored. Do you get it now, dummy? The greenhouse effect has to do with how much energy is radiated to space, not how much energy we receive from the sun.

 

[SSDD]

Of course it's been answered. After first denying that greenhouse effect even existed and claiming it was impossible, you've now accepted that it is real.

And there's no denying that humans are generating Gigatons of CO2 emissions every year which add to the greenhouse effect.

So, obviously, to anyone with a brain, physical evidence of AGW is proven.

Wrong again...

You have proved nothing as no science has been done to prove man has any influence. At least 100 papers, in the last two years, have stated that "man's impact can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system". They were unable to discern man's impact. SO.. as of today this question remains unanswered by alarmists and science.. SO please share with us the papers that show the linkage and science done to prove this..

Loose correlations and assumptions are not proof...

Greenhouse effect is based on science that began in the 19th century. It's well established. That's not up for debate. The only question is how much humans contribute to the warming we're observing. I don't know the answer to that. Obviously we contribute some based simply on the huge amount of CO2 emissions. But like OJ, I'm sure you're hot on the trail to find the real culprit.

Again you have proved nothing.. The LOG warming anticipated is not in question, the amplification or dampening is and this is why all modeling fails. We haven't even determined what man is responsible for because we can not model the system correctly to determine it. Those who have models that are close find they can not discern mans impact from noise.

Once more you make an assumption from correlation and fail to make the causal linkage and determinations of what is NATURAL PROCESS and what is Man Caused.

You are so far over his head that you may as well be speaking in ancient greek

You're both so full of shit your eyes are brown.

I'm not the one dodging over the claimed basic mechanism of the hypothetical greenhouse effect so that I won't have to pursue the issue further...I am not afraid to examine the actual science because I am not emotionally, and politically invested in it...

 

[SSDD]

Again you have proved nothing.. The LOG warming anticipated is not in question, the amplification or dampening is and this is why all modeling fails. We haven't even determined what man is responsible for because we can not model the system correctly to determine it. Those who have models that are close find they can not discern mans impact from noise.

Once more you make an assumption from correlation and fail to make the causal linkage and determinations of what is NATURAL PROCESS and what is Man Caused.

Well, this is some progress anyway. Yesterday you denied such a graph even existed.

Its a graphing of garbage....

That's actually the first true thing I've seen you say. It is exactly that. A measurement of how much combustion waste product has been spewed into the atmosphere over the last 60 years.

The only one spewing garbage is you.. You have yet to produce any empirical evidence and process which validates anything you say....

It's right in front of your nose, idiot.

So do explain to us...in your own words how a CO2 data station sitting on top of a volcano is evidence of man made global warming....or evidence that we are the primary drivers of atmospheric CO2...or any of your other contentions...espcecially when the OCO-2 satellite tells an entirely different story than the lonely station sitting on top of a CO2 spewing volcano...

This should be an interesting story....or a very predictable dodge which is what I expect...

 

[SSDD]

You're an incredible knucklehead. The earth has an energy balance. How much energy it receives, how much is stored, how much is radiated back into space. It's always being warmed by the sun at a fairly constant flux. How much energy is radiated to space is regulated by greenhouse gases, among other things. The difference is how much is stored. The stronger the greenhouse effect, the more energy is stored. Do you get it now, dummy? The greenhouse effect has to do with how much energy is radiated to space, not how much energy we receive from the sun.

How do greenhouse gasses regulate how much energy is radiated to space. How do greenhouse gasses "store" energy. None of the so called greenhouse gas molecules have any capacity to store energy other than water vapor....so how is it stored...and if it is being stored, where is the tropospheric hot spot that would be, according to climate science, the inevitable, and inescapable result of that storage?

And again, the satellites tell us that there is no energy imbalance between the incoming solar radiation and the outgoing long wave radiation...if there were an energy imbalance, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot as a result...there is none. So where, and how is it being stored?

Once again, it appears that whoever is providing you with your opinion has left you woefully uninformed...

Your explanation isn't an explanation at all..it is a string of talking points stuck together that paint a vague picture, but don't explain anything....earth has an energy balance....of course it has an energy balance...if it had an energy imbalance, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot, and the satellites would not be showing a different story than the climate models...

How much energy is stored? We know that the oceans store incoming short wave solar radiation...it penetrates deep into the ocean...we also know that long wave radiation does not get stored in the ocean because it can only penetrate about 1 micron into the surface where evaporation removes any effect it might have had almost immediately...So where is this longwave infrared radiation being "stored".

You say that how much energy is being radiated into space is regulated by so called greenhouse gasses. On that point, I will agree with you. Since greenhouse gasses absorb and radiate long wave radiation, they are able to move the energy they absorb, and actually get to radiate out into space at the speed of light...they move energy far more efficiently, and far more quickly than the cumbersome mechanisms of convection and conduction which are the only ways oxygen and nitrogen which make up the bulk of the atmosphere can move energy.

That being said, as greenhouse gas quantities in the atmosphere increase, if I am correct, then the amount of long wave radiation escaping the earth at the top of the atmosphere should be increasing right along with the increase in so called greenhouse gasses.....exactly the opposite of what the greenhouse hypothesis predicts. Lets take a look:

How about that...radiation escaping earth at the top of the atmosphere is increasing...and has been for a good long time....where is this "storage" happening?

By the way...you claimed that the earth was being warmed by a fairly constant flux of energy from the sun...the TSI is fairly constant, but the flux in individual wavelengths vary wildly from day to day, month to month, year to year. century to century...do you have any idea how these wildly varying wavelengths might effect the warming or cooling of the earth? Don't worry, climate science doesn't either...they are just now beginning to scratch the surface of it.

Then you claim that the stronger the greenhouse effect, the more energy is being stored...stored where? We know that there is no tropospheric hot spot which is where climate science said the smoking gun would be for our effect on the climate...we can look at the outgoing long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere and see that it is increasing...which is what I predicted and exactly the opposite of what climate science predicts.

Do you deny it? Go ahead...deny the science in favor of the opinion provided to you by alarmists, activists, politicians, and the media...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're an incredible knucklehead. The earth has an energy balance. How much energy it receives, how much is stored, how much is radiated back into space. It's always being warmed by the sun at a fairly constant flux. How much energy is radiated to space is regulated by greenhouse gases, among other things. The difference is how much is stored. The stronger the greenhouse effect, the more energy is stored. Do you get it now, dummy? The greenhouse effect has to do with how much energy is radiated to space, not how much energy we receive from the sun.

How do greenhouse gasses regulate how much energy is radiated to space. How do greenhouse gasses "store" energy. None of the so called greenhouse gas molecules have any capacity to store energy other than water vapor....so how is it stored...and if it is being stored, where is the tropospheric hot spot that would be, according to climate science, the inevitable, and inescapable result of that storage?

And again, the satellites tell us that there is no energy imbalance between the incoming solar radiation and the outgoing long wave radiation...if there were an energy imbalance, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot as a result...there is none. So where, and how is it being stored?

Once again, it appears that whoever is providing you with your opinion has left you woefully uninformed...

Your explanation isn't an explanation at all..it is a string of talking points stuck together that paint a vague picture, but don't explain anything....earth has an energy balance....of course it has an energy balance...if it had an energy imbalance, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot, and the satellites would not be showing a different story than the climate models...

How much energy is stored? We know that the oceans store incoming short wave solar radiation...it penetrates deep into the ocean...we also know that long wave radiation does not get stored in the ocean because it can only penetrate about 1 micron into the surface where evaporation removes any effect it might have had almost immediately...So where is this longwave infrared radiation being "stored".

You say that how much energy is being radiated into space is regulated by so called greenhouse gasses. On that point, I will agree with you. Since greenhouse gasses absorb and radiate long wave radiation, they are able to move the energy they absorb, and actually get to radiate out into space at the speed of light...they move energy far more efficiently, and far more quickly than the cumbersome mechanisms of convection and conduction which are the only ways oxygen and nitrogen which make up the bulk of the atmosphere can move energy.

That being said, as greenhouse gas quantities in the atmosphere increase, if I am correct, then the amount of long wave radiation escaping the earth at the top of the atmosphere should be increasing right along with the increase in so called greenhouse gasses.....exactly the opposite of what the greenhouse hypothesis predicts. Lets take a look:

How about that...radiation escaping earth at the top of the atmosphere is increasing...and has been for a good long time....where is this "storage" happening?

By the way...you claimed that the earth was being warmed by a fairly constant flux of energy from the sun...the TSI is fairly constant, but the flux in individual wavelengths vary wildly from day to day, month to month, year to year. century to century...do you have any idea how these wildly varying wavelengths might effect the warming or cooling of the earth? Don't worry, climate science doesn't either...they are just now beginning to scratch the surface of it.

Then you claim that the stronger the greenhouse effect, the more energy is being stored...stored where? We know that there is no tropospheric hot spot which is where climate science said the smoking gun would be for our effect on the climate...we can look at the outgoing long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere and see that it is increasing...which is what I predicted and exactly the opposite of what climate science predicts.

Do you deny it? Go ahead...deny the science in favor of the opinion provided to you by alarmists, activists, politicians, and the media...

None of the so called greenhouse gas molecules have any capacity to store energy other than water vapor....

What's the temperature of all the so called greenhouse gasses? Absolute zero? DURR.

 

[Cosmos]

Wrong again...

You have proved nothing as no science has been done to prove man has any influence. At least 100 papers, in the last two years, have stated that "man's impact can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system". They were unable to discern man's impact. SO.. as of today this question remains unanswered by alarmists and science.. SO please share with us the papers that show the linkage and science done to prove this..

Loose correlations and assumptions are not proof...

Greenhouse effect is based on science that began in the 19th century. It's well established. That's not up for debate. The only question is how much humans contribute to the warming we're observing. I don't know the answer to that. Obviously we contribute some based simply on the huge amount of CO2 emissions. But like OJ, I'm sure you're hot on the trail to find the real culprit.

Again you have proved nothing.. The LOG warming anticipated is not in question, the amplification or dampening is and this is why all modeling fails. We haven't even determined what man is responsible for because we can not model the system correctly to determine it. Those who have models that are close find they can not discern mans impact from noise.

Once more you make an assumption from correlation and fail to make the causal linkage and determinations of what is NATURAL PROCESS and what is Man Caused.

You are so far over his head that you may as well be speaking in ancient greek

You're both so full of shit your eyes are brown.

I'm not the one dodging over the claimed basic mechanism of the hypothetical greenhouse effect so that I won't have to pursue the issue further...I am not afraid to examine the actual science because I am not emotionally, and politically invested in it...

No. You're the one that fundamentally doesn't understand the greenhouse effect. So you misrepresent it as something it's not with an absurd strawman argument and then claim it's impossible. All you know how to do is google links to global warming skeptics and crackpots who have websites to attract idiots like you. Then when you are shown legitimate data from places like NASA, NOAA, or Scripps you just outright deny its validity because you're too stupid to understand it. And to cover up your bluff you post miles and miles of climate bullshit you don't have any hope of understanding to put up the pretense that you know something you don't. In other words, you're an idiot and a fraud.

 

[Cosmos]

Well, this is some progress anyway. Yesterday you denied such a graph even existed.

Its a graphing of garbage....

That's actually the first true thing I've seen you say. It is exactly that. A measurement of how much combustion waste product has been spewed into the atmosphere over the last 60 years.

The only one spewing garbage is you.. You have yet to produce any empirical evidence and process which validates anything you say....

It's right in front of your nose, idiot.

So do explain to us...in your own words how a CO2 data station sitting on top of a volcano is evidence of man made global warming....or evidence that we are the primary drivers of atmospheric CO2...or any of your other contentions...espcecially when the OCO-2 satellite tells an entirely different story than the lonely station sitting on top of a CO2 spewing volcano...

This should be an interesting story....or a very predictable dodge which is what I expect...

Read and learn, dummy.

Climate Q&A - How do scientists know that Mauna Loa’s volcanic emissions don’t affect the carbon dioxide data collected there?

 

[Billy_Bob]

What's hard to understand are your dingbat's silly ass arguments, or lack thereof.

At no time did I say that the globe wasn't warming or that the green house hypothesis was total bunk, what I did say was man's impact was irrelevant and the AGW hypothesis, as stated by the IPCC and alarmists was garbage..

Your modeling shows the failure quite well. Your understanding of the AGW hypothesis is that of zero as evidenced by predictive failure after predictive failure of your modeling (which demonstrates your understanding).

I would dare say, Dr Spencers work show this quite well;

View attachment 269371

I love how you guys claim its more certain as your failure grows larger and larger..

Did you overlook posts #231 and #232?

Sure didn't..

Your premise that LWIR MUST pass through CO2 or it stays in the atmosphere is ludicrous... It doesn't deserve an answer.. That's the kind of stupidity I expect from alarmists..

 

[Billy_Bob]

You're the one that fundamentally doesn't understand the greenhouse effect.

You have clearly demonstrated your ignorance...Bravo!

 

[Sunsettommy]

What's hard to understand are your dingbat's silly ass arguments, or lack thereof.

At no time did I say that the globe wasn't warming or that the green house hypothesis was total bunk, what I did say was man's impact was irrelevant and the AGW hypothesis, as stated by the IPCC and alarmists was garbage..

Your modeling shows the failure quite well. Your understanding of the AGW hypothesis is that of zero as evidenced by predictive failure after predictive failure of your modeling (which demonstrates your understanding).

I would dare say, Dr Spencers work show this quite well;

View attachment 269371

I love how you guys claim its more certain as your failure grows larger and larger..

Did you overlook posts #231 and #232?

Sure didn't..

Your premise that LWIR MUST pass through CO2 or it stays in the atmosphere is ludicrous... It doesn't deserve an answer.. That's the kind of stupidity I expect from alarmists..

They keep forgetting that CO2 IR absorption range is around 5% of the IR spectrum, meaning that 95% of the IR spectrum is never absorbed by CO2 at all.

This was pointed out by an Atmosphere Physicist 10 years ago:

Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?

Excerpt:

As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don't account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits - so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.

==========================

There is a lot more in the link that shows how minor CO2 really is as a "greenhouse" gas.

 

[SSDD]

No. You're the one that fundamentally doesn't understand the greenhouse effect. So you misrepresent it as something it's not with an absurd strawman argument and then claim it's impossible. All you know how to do is google links to global warming skeptics and crackpots who have websites to attract idiots like you. Then when you are shown legitimate data from places like NASA, NOAA, or Scripps you just outright deny its validity because you're too stupid to understand it. And to cover up your bluff you post miles and miles of climate bullshit you don't have any hope of understanding to put up the pretense that you know something you don't. In other words, you're an idiot and a fraud.

What the hell are you talking about? As I look back through this conversation, I see that I have provided information from NOOA, the IPCC, NCCP, NASA, The University of Colorado, The publication Global Change Biology, The Oxford ICES Journal of Marine Science, Evidence Based Science, Second Edition, The Journal of the Meterology Society of Japan, the journal Energy and Environment, The journal of the American Chemical Society, Geophysical Research Letters, Environmental Research Letters, and NASA's OCO-2 satellite data site.

Which one of those are you characterizing as a skeptics blog. Apparently when you are shown data from real scientific journals, as well as NOAA, NASA, etc, you don't even recognize it. Alas, you are the one who is dodging, doesn't even seem to understand even the basics, and can't recognize valid scientific data when it is provided for you.

Clearly you are just another hysterical handwaving alarmist full of talking points without the first bit of actual scientific knowledge...

 

[Cosmos]

There is a lot more in the link that shows how minor CO2 is as a "greenhouse" gas.

So what. It is what it is. Ideal to keep us from freezing to death or burning to a crisp. If it was either a stronger or weaker ghg, life would have evolved differently.

 

[Billy_Bob]

What's hard to understand are your dingbat's silly ass arguments, or lack thereof.

At no time did I say that the globe wasn't warming or that the green house hypothesis was total bunk, what I did say was man's impact was irrelevant and the AGW hypothesis, as stated by the IPCC and alarmists was garbage..

Your modeling shows the failure quite well. Your understanding of the AGW hypothesis is that of zero as evidenced by predictive failure after predictive failure of your modeling (which demonstrates your understanding).

I would dare say, Dr Spencers work show this quite well;

View attachment 269371

I love how you guys claim its more certain as your failure grows larger and larger..

Did you overlook posts #231 and #232?

Sure didn't..

Your premise that LWIR MUST pass through CO2 or it stays in the atmosphere is ludicrous... It doesn't deserve an answer.. That's the kind of stupidity I expect from alarmists..

They keep forgetting that CO2 IR absorption range is around 5% of the IR spectrum, meaning that 95% of the IR spectrum is never absorbed by CO2 at all.

This was pointed out by an Atmosphere Physicist 10 years ago:

Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?

Excerpt:

As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don't account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits - so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.

==========================

There is a lot more in the link that shows how minor CO2 really is as a "greenhouse" gas.

The work I did for my doctoral thesis proved, that absent water vapor, the earths atmosphere passes 99.6% of the energy it absorbs/passes without warming it. less than 0.4% OF THE ATMOSPHERE REACTS TO LWIR and reflects/re-emits it. AGW as hypothesis fails miserably.

 

[Cosmos]

No. You're the one that fundamentally doesn't understand the greenhouse effect. So you misrepresent it as something it's not with an absurd strawman argument and then claim it's impossible. All you know how to do is google links to global warming skeptics and crackpots who have websites to attract idiots like you. Then when you are shown legitimate data from places like NASA, NOAA, or Scripps you just outright deny its validity because you're too stupid to understand it. And to cover up your bluff you post miles and miles of climate bullshit you don't have any hope of understanding to put up the pretense that you know something you don't. In other words, you're an idiot and a fraud.

What the hell are you talking about? As I look back through this conversation, I see that I have provided information from NOOA, the IPCC, NCCP, NASA, The University of Colorado, The publication Global Change Biology, The Oxford ICES Journal of Marine Science, Evidence Based Science, Second Edition, The Journal of the Meterology Society of Japan, the journal Energy and Environment, The journal of the American Chemical Society, Geophysical Research Letters, Environmental Research Letters, and NASA's OCO-2 satellite data site.

Which one of those are you characterizing as a skeptics blog. Apparently when you are shown data from real scientific journals, as well as NOAA, NASA, etc, you don't even recognize it. Alas, you are the one who is dodging, doesn't even seem to understand even the basics, and can't recognize valid scientific data when it is provided for you.

Clearly you are just another hysterical handwaving alarmist full of talking points without the first bit of actual scientific knowledge...

And I haven't read a word of it. You don't understand any of it anyway. So why do you post it?

 

[SSDD]

Read and learn, dummy.

Climate Q&A - How do scientists know that Mauna Loa’s volcanic emissions don’t affect the carbon dioxide data collected there?

So which part of that do you think answers a single one of my questions? Feel free to cut and paste the answer here, or simply direct me to a particular paragraph...

Talk about not having a clue....I ask specific questions and you refer me to a link that doesn't even come close to answering any of them...and the sad thing is that that is probably the best you can do.

At this point, I predict that you aren't going to cut and paste anything from that site, and will in all likelihood give some weak assed excuse for not pointing out any particular paragraph....because you don't understand any of what is on that page, and can't speak to any of the questions I asked.

I await your excuse.

 

[Billy_Bob]

No. You're the one that fundamentally doesn't understand the greenhouse effect. So you misrepresent it as something it's not with an absurd strawman argument and then claim it's impossible. All you know how to do is google links to global warming skeptics and crackpots who have websites to attract idiots like you. Then when you are shown legitimate data from places like NASA, NOAA, or Scripps you just outright deny its validity because you're too stupid to understand it. And to cover up your bluff you post miles and miles of climate bullshit you don't have any hope of understanding to put up the pretense that you know something you don't. In other words, you're an idiot and a fraud.

What the hell are you talking about? As I look back through this conversation, I see that I have provided information from NOOA, the IPCC, NCCP, NASA, The University of Colorado, The publication Global Change Biology, The Oxford ICES Journal of Marine Science, Evidence Based Science, Second Edition, The Journal of the Meterology Society of Japan, the journal Energy and Environment, The journal of the American Chemical Society, Geophysical Research Letters, Environmental Research Letters, and NASA's OCO-2 satellite data site.

Which one of those are you characterizing as a skeptics blog. Apparently when you are shown data from real scientific journals, as well as NOAA, NASA, etc, you don't even recognize it. Alas, you are the one who is dodging, doesn't even seem to understand even the basics, and can't recognize valid scientific data when it is provided for you.

Clearly you are just another hysterical handwaving alarmist full of talking points without the first bit of actual scientific knowledge...

And I haven't read a word of it. You don't understand any of it anyway. So why do you post it?

Deflect, Deflect, Deflect.... Especially when your shown a fraud and a lair.... You have your alarmist talking points down pat....

 

[SSDD]

There is a lot more in the link that shows how minor CO2 is as a "greenhouse" gas.

So what. It is what it is. Ideal to keep us from freezing to death or burning to a crisp. If it was either a stronger or weaker ghg, life would have evolved differently.

CO2 can never burn us to a crisp...right now CO2 is at about 400ppm...at the time when the present ice age began, atmospheric CO2 was about 1000ppm...go further back and it has been as high as 7000ppm with no evidence, ever of a runaway greenhouse effect. History itself proves your alarmist notions wrong.

 

[Cosmos]

Read and learn, dummy.

Climate Q&A - How do scientists know that Mauna Loa’s volcanic emissions don’t affect the carbon dioxide data collected there?

So which part of that do you think answers a single one of my questions? Feel free to cut and paste the answer here, or simply direct me to a particular paragraph...

Talk about not having a clue....I ask specific questions and you refer me to a link that doesn't even come close to answering any of them...and the sad thing is that that is probably the best you can do.

At this point, I predict that you aren't going to cut and paste anything from that site, and will in all likelihood give some weak assed excuse for not pointing out any particular paragraph....because you don't understand any of what is on that page, and can't speak to any of the questions I asked.

I await your excuse.

If I have to spoon feed it to you like a fucking baby, perhaps you should put on your bib, dipshit. It's a very short article.

 

[SSDD]

No. You're the one that fundamentally doesn't understand the greenhouse effect. So you misrepresent it as something it's not with an absurd strawman argument and then claim it's impossible. All you know how to do is google links to global warming skeptics and crackpots who have websites to attract idiots like you. Then when you are shown legitimate data from places like NASA, NOAA, or Scripps you just outright deny its validity because you're too stupid to understand it. And to cover up your bluff you post miles and miles of climate bullshit you don't have any hope of understanding to put up the pretense that you know something you don't. In other words, you're an idiot and a fraud.

What the hell are you talking about? As I look back through this conversation, I see that I have provided information from NOOA, the IPCC, NCCP, NASA, The University of Colorado, The publication Global Change Biology, The Oxford ICES Journal of Marine Science, Evidence Based Science, Second Edition, The Journal of the Meterology Society of Japan, the journal Energy and Environment, The journal of the American Chemical Society, Geophysical Research Letters, Environmental Research Letters, and NASA's OCO-2 satellite data site.

Which one of those are you characterizing as a skeptics blog. Apparently when you are shown data from real scientific journals, as well as NOAA, NASA, etc, you don't even recognize it. Alas, you are the one who is dodging, doesn't even seem to understand even the basics, and can't recognize valid scientific data when it is provided for you.

Clearly you are just another hysterical handwaving alarmist full of talking points without the first bit of actual scientific knowledge...

And I haven't read a word of it. You don't understand any of it anyway. So why do you post it?

Actually I understand it just fine, which is why I provided it to support my claims...you on the other hand, deny any science that is provided to you, and don't even read what is provided from the scientists on your side of the discussion... Clearly you have never read a single article from any actual scientific journal...obicously you get your opinion from the very sort of blogs that you accuse me of using even though the information I have provided you with is from credible scientific organizations and journals...

It is clear that one of us doesn't have even the smallest grasp of the science...but alas, it isn't me...as soon as we started getting into specifics about the science, you started dodging ......which is what happens with all alarmists who have no informed opinion of their own....

 

[Cosmos]

What's hard to understand are your dingbat's silly ass arguments, or lack thereof.

At no time did I say that the globe wasn't warming or that the green house hypothesis was total bunk, what I did say was man's impact was irrelevant and the AGW hypothesis, as stated by the IPCC and alarmists was garbage..

Your modeling shows the failure quite well. Your understanding of the AGW hypothesis is that of zero as evidenced by predictive failure after predictive failure of your modeling (which demonstrates your understanding).

I would dare say, Dr Spencers work show this quite well;

View attachment 269371

I love how you guys claim its more certain as your failure grows larger and larger..

Did you overlook posts #231 and #232?

Sure didn't..

Your premise that LWIR MUST pass through CO2 or it stays in the atmosphere is ludicrous... It doesn't deserve an answer.. That's the kind of stupidity I expect from alarmists..

They keep forgetting that CO2 IR absorption range is around 5% of the IR spectrum, meaning that 95% of the IR spectrum is never absorbed by CO2 at all.

This was pointed out by an Atmosphere Physicist 10 years ago:

Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?

Excerpt:

As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don't account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits - so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.

==========================

There is a lot more in the link that shows how minor CO2 really is as a "greenhouse" gas.

The work I did for my doctoral thesis proved, that absent water vapor, the earths atmosphere passes 99.6% of the energy it absorbs/passes without warming it. less than 0.4% OF THE ATMOSPHERE REACTS TO LWIR and reflects/re-emits it. AGW as hypothesis fails miserably.

Thesis my ass. You're an imbecile and a fake.