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

[Sunsettommy]

Please provide the mechanism by which the air is warmed by CO2 absent water vapor. I'll wait..

You're equally as stupid as the other one. CO2 does not "warm the air". The sun does that by heating the earth, which reflects IR radiation, which heats the air. CO2 keeps heat from escaping into space.

You were shown measurements of infrared radiation escaping to space at the top of the atmosphere and the amount of IR escaping is climbing right along with the increasing CO2...so where does this "trapped" energy hide out? There is no tropospheric hot spot which is what climate models predict along with decreasing IR escaping at the top of the atmosphere...

Not hot spot, and increasing IR escaping at the top of the atmosphere...precisely the opposite of the predictions of the greenhouse hypothesis....Explain.

You're an imbecile. A "hotspot" has been shown to exist in the troposphere in tropical latitudes that is warming 80% faster than the temperature of the earth.

Try again, stupid.

Now you are just lying.

The below written by Scientist Bill Illis,

Here is a comment I saved that addressed this lie by using the official data:


"Here is the HadAT database for the weather balloon data going back to 1958.

The Hotspot(s) that Sherwood found are at the 300 mb level or the average height that Channel 3 shows here.

Channel 3 trend is effectively Zero.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/msu_timeseries.png

We can also get a more detailed latitude breakdown from RSS going back to 1987 (TTS or Channel 3 or 300 mb again).
Tropics. Nothing.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/tts/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TTS_Tropics_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png

Southern mid-latitudes. Negative.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/tts/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TTS_Southern Mid Latitudes_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png

Hence, one should be able to conclude that there is other data which completely contradicts Sherwood’s finding of the hotspot and he will need to show everyone exactly what he did in this paper or it will go into the dustbin like his previous attempts did."

Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2) - IOPscience

Not this again...., HA HA HA. A paper so bad that no warmist scientists are behind it. Sherwood is all alone on it. Just a few ignorant and blind warmists swallow this shit!

He was exposed as publishing crap by many, the official HadAT2 data by debunks it and he misused the Kridging process, which alone invalidate his crap.

Go look at the data fella, I posted it for you, the data doesn't support Pseudoscientist Sherwood at all. It has NEVER accepted Dr. Sherwoods claims, the data remains unchanged, still NO "hotspot" found.

 

[Cosmos]

You're equally as stupid as the other one. CO2 does not "warm the air". The sun does that by heating the earth, which reflects IR radiation, which heats the air. CO2 keeps heat from escaping into space.

You were shown measurements of infrared radiation escaping to space at the top of the atmosphere and the amount of IR escaping is climbing right along with the increasing CO2...so where does this "trapped" energy hide out? There is no tropospheric hot spot which is what climate models predict along with decreasing IR escaping at the top of the atmosphere...

Not hot spot, and increasing IR escaping at the top of the atmosphere...precisely the opposite of the predictions of the greenhouse hypothesis....Explain.

You're an imbecile. A "hotspot" has been shown to exist in the troposphere in tropical latitudes that is warming 80% faster than the temperature of the earth.

Try again, stupid.

Now you are just lying.

The below written by Scientist Bill Illis,

Here is a comment I saved that addressed this lie by using the official data:


"Here is the HadAT database for the weather balloon data going back to 1958.

The Hotspot(s) that Sherwood found are at the 300 mb level or the average height that Channel 3 shows here.

Channel 3 trend is effectively Zero.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/msu_timeseries.png

We can also get a more detailed latitude breakdown from RSS going back to 1987 (TTS or Channel 3 or 300 mb again).
Tropics. Nothing.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/tts/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TTS_Tropics_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png

Southern mid-latitudes. Negative.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/tts/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TTS_Southern Mid Latitudes_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png

Hence, one should be able to conclude that there is other data which completely contradicts Sherwood’s finding of the hotspot and he will need to show everyone exactly what he did in this paper or it will go into the dustbin like his previous attempts did."

Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2) - IOPscience

Not this again...., HA HA HA. A paper so bad that no warmist scientists are behind it. Sherwood is all alone on it. Just a few ignorant and blind warmists swallow this shit!

He was exposed as publishing crap by many, the official HadAT2 data by debunks it and he misused the Kridging process, which alone invalidate his crap.

Go look at the data fella, I posted it for you, the data doesn't support Pseudoscientist Sherwood at all. It has NEVER accepted Dr. Sherwoods claims, the data remains unchanged, still NO "hotspot" found.

It's a difficult question to analyze. Sherwood is not alone.

American Geophysical Union

 

[SSDD]

Please provide the mechanism by which the air is warmed by CO2 absent water vapor. I'll wait..

You're equally as stupid as the other one. CO2 does not "warm the air". The sun does that by heating the earth, which reflects IR radiation, which heats the air. CO2 keeps heat from escaping into space.

You were shown measurements of infrared radiation escaping to space at the top of the atmosphere and the amount of IR escaping is climbing right along with the increasing CO2...so where does this "trapped" energy hide out? There is no tropospheric hot spot which is what climate models predict along with decreasing IR escaping at the top of the atmosphere...

Not hot spot, and increasing IR escaping at the top of the atmosphere...precisely the opposite of the predictions of the greenhouse hypothesis....Explain.

You're an imbecile. A "hotspot" has been shown to exist in the troposphere in tropical latitudes that is warming 80% faster than the temperature of the earth.

Try again, stupid.

Now you are just lying.

The below written by Scientist Bill Illis,

Here is a comment I saved that addressed this lie by using the official data:


"Here is the HadAT database for the weather balloon data going back to 1958.

The Hotspot(s) that Sherwood found are at the 300 mb level or the average height that Channel 3 shows here.

Channel 3 trend is effectively Zero.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/msu_timeseries.png

We can also get a more detailed latitude breakdown from RSS going back to 1987 (TTS or Channel 3 or 300 mb again).
Tropics. Nothing.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/tts/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TTS_Tropics_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png

Southern mid-latitudes. Negative.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/tts/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TTS_Southern Mid Latitudes_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png

Hence, one should be able to conclude that there is other data which completely contradicts Sherwood’s finding of the hotspot and he will need to show everyone exactly what he did in this paper or it will go into the dustbin like his previous attempts did."

Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2) - IOPscience

Hilarious....a "HOT SPOT" that can't be measured with a thermometer. What sort of hot spot can only be measured with an anemometer? Sounds more like a windy spot to me.. How gullible are you?

Let me guess..I bet you actually believe that the observer makes the reality, and that 96% of the universe is invisible too...

 

[SSDD]

You were shown measurements of infrared radiation escaping to space at the top of the atmosphere and the amount of IR escaping is climbing right along with the increasing CO2...so where does this "trapped" energy hide out? There is no tropospheric hot spot which is what climate models predict along with decreasing IR escaping at the top of the atmosphere...

Not hot spot, and increasing IR escaping at the top of the atmosphere...precisely the opposite of the predictions of the greenhouse hypothesis....Explain.

You're an imbecile. A "hotspot" has been shown to exist in the troposphere in tropical latitudes that is warming 80% faster than the temperature of the earth.

Try again, stupid.

Now you are just lying.

The below written by Scientist Bill Illis,

Here is a comment I saved that addressed this lie by using the official data:


"Here is the HadAT database for the weather balloon data going back to 1958.

The Hotspot(s) that Sherwood found are at the 300 mb level or the average height that Channel 3 shows here.

Channel 3 trend is effectively Zero.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/msu_timeseries.png

We can also get a more detailed latitude breakdown from RSS going back to 1987 (TTS or Channel 3 or 300 mb again).
Tropics. Nothing.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/tts/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TTS_Tropics_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png

Southern mid-latitudes. Negative.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/tts/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TTS_Southern Mid Latitudes_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png

Hence, one should be able to conclude that there is other data which completely contradicts Sherwood’s finding of the hotspot and he will need to show everyone exactly what he did in this paper or it will go into the dustbin like his previous attempts did."

Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2) - IOPscience

Not this again...., HA HA HA. A paper so bad that no warmist scientists are behind it. Sherwood is all alone on it. Just a few ignorant and blind warmists swallow this shit!

He was exposed as publishing crap by many, the official HadAT2 data by debunks it and he misused the Kridging process, which alone invalidate his crap.

Go look at the data fella, I posted it for you, the data doesn't support Pseudoscientist Sherwood at all. It has NEVER accepted Dr. Sherwoods claims, the data remains unchanged, still NO "hotspot" found.

It's a difficult question to analyze. Sherwood is not alone.

American Geophysical Union

From your paper...

Clip:
Using coupled‐ocean atmosphere models from CMIP 5, we highlight the discrepancy in surface temperature trends between model simulations and observations (especially over the 1979–2008 period)..........

Models...imagine that...they found a hot spot that can't be measured with a million radiosondes equipped with state of the art thermometers in a model...how completely unsurprising is that? How gullible did you say you were again?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The dipshit who started this thread denies even the possibility that that greenhouse effect exists even though it is obvious that it does.

Please provide the mechanism by which the air is warmed by CO2 absent water vapor. I'll wait..

You're equally as stupid as the other one. CO2 does not "warm the air". The sun does that by heating the earth, which reflects IR radiation, which heats the air. CO2 keeps heat from escaping into space.

You really should get some new talking points. The ones you have are all lies and deceptions. Here is a link to a company that makes IR heaters and they explain it quite well despite your misconceptions.

"
Used by cavemen to heat themselves by fires; by Romans in their hypocausts, by log burners and tile stoves, Infrared heating has been favoured for millennia because like the heat of the sun on your surrounding environment – even during winter – Infrared heats objects, which then radiate back and keep the environment warm around you. Radiant heat does not heat air – which holds little heat and rapidly disperses.

Infrared waves travel through the air and when they touch a surface, heat energy is released regardless of the surrounding air temperature. That heat energy excites the molecules in the object it meets which being to vibrate and gain energy (and warm up). Water absorbs Far Infrared specifically well, and as our skin is 80% water, we are perfectly adapted to Far Infrared (Robinson, 2014). Far Infrared – unsurprisingly – the same band of infrared that the human body itself emits.

All objects (including people) absorb and emit infrared and whether one is absorbing or emitting depends on the difference in temperatures between objects in an environment. If objects in an environment are warmer than you are, you will warm up from them. If you are warmer than objects in an environment you will radiate out to them and feel cold. (This Infrared emission is why police Infrared cameras can see fugitives trying to escape detection). But it is also why we can still feel cold in centrally heated rooms, which only heat the air and don’t heat the objects within a room.

If you are in a centrally heated room at 21°C with your back to an outside wall at 17°C, you will be radiating heat out to that outside wall and you will therefore feel cold: regardless of the room’s “comfortable” air temperature. This underlies a fundamental difference between infrared and “convection” heating.

An experiment at the John B. Pierce Laboratory, USA, clarified the different human perceptions of heat:

“Test persons in a room with a temperature of 50°C (122°F) of warm air and cooled walls froze deplorably; when in a room with a cool air temperature of 10°C (50°F) and warm walls, they broke into an unpleasant sweat.”
(source: Techn. Info “Strahlungsenergie – die Ur-Energie, neu entdeckt, TT Technotherm GmbH, Nürnberg).

Feeling warm has nothing to do with air temperature. It is all about absorption of infrared from our surroundings (warming up) or stopping ourselves losing radiation (cooling down) to a “colder” outside.

But in the last 60 years, we have forgotten about radiant heating: not because a better technology replaced it, but because fossil fuels that powered central heating made it so cheap just to heat air."

What is Infrared Heat?

Sources:

Professor Anthony Robinson, Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Trinity College, Dublin 2.

Peter Schroeder, Judith Haendeler, Jean Krutmann, The role of near infrared radiation in photoaging of the skin, Experimental Gerontology, Volume 43, Issue 7, July 2008, Pages 629-632, ISSN 0531-5565

Dr. Janet Voke, Radiation effects on the eye, Part 1 – Infrared radiation effects on ocular tissue,Optometry Today, May 1999

 

[SSDD]

The dipshit who started this thread denies even the possibility that that greenhouse effect exists even though it is obvious that it does.

Please provide the mechanism by which the air is warmed by CO2 absent water vapor. I'll wait..

You're equally as stupid as the other one. CO2 does not "warm the air". The sun does that by heating the earth, which reflects IR radiation, which heats the air. CO2 keeps heat from escaping into space.

You really should get some new talking points. The ones you have are all lies and deceptions. Here is a link to a company that makes IR heaters and they explain it quite well despite your misconceptions.

"
Used by cavemen to heat themselves by fires; by Romans in their hypocausts, by log burners and tile stoves, Infrared heating has been favoured for millennia because like the heat of the sun on your surrounding environment – even during winter – Infrared heats objects, which then radiate back and keep the environment warm around you. Radiant heat does not heat air – which holds little heat and rapidly disperses.

Infrared waves travel through the air and when they touch a surface, heat energy is released regardless of the surrounding air temperature. That heat energy excites the molecules in the object it meets which being to vibrate and gain energy (and warm up). Water absorbs Far Infrared specifically well, and as our skin is 80% water, we are perfectly adapted to Far Infrared (Robinson, 2014). Far Infrared – unsurprisingly – the same band of infrared that the human body itself emits.

All objects (including people) absorb and emit infrared and whether one is absorbing or emitting depends on the difference in temperatures between objects in an environment. If objects in an environment are warmer than you are, you will warm up from them. If you are warmer than objects in an environment you will radiate out to them and feel cold. (This Infrared emission is why police Infrared cameras can see fugitives trying to escape detection). But it is also why we can still feel cold in centrally heated rooms, which only heat the air and don’t heat the objects within a room.

If you are in a centrally heated room at 21°C with your back to an outside wall at 17°C, you will be radiating heat out to that outside wall and you will therefore feel cold: regardless of the room’s “comfortable” air temperature. This underlies a fundamental difference between infrared and “convection” heating.

An experiment at the John B. Pierce Laboratory, USA, clarified the different human perceptions of heat:

“Test persons in a room with a temperature of 50°C (122°F) of warm air and cooled walls froze deplorably; when in a room with a cool air temperature of 10°C (50°F) and warm walls, they broke into an unpleasant sweat.”
(source: Techn. Info “Strahlungsenergie – die Ur-Energie, neu entdeckt, TT Technotherm GmbH, Nürnberg).

Feeling warm has nothing to do with air temperature. It is all about absorption of infrared from our surroundings (warming up) or stopping ourselves losing radiation (cooling down) to a “colder” outside.

But in the last 60 years, we have forgotten about radiant heating: not because a better technology replaced it, but because fossil fuels that powered central heating made it so cheap just to heat air."

What is Infrared Heat?

Sources:

Professor Anthony Robinson, Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Trinity College, Dublin 2.

Peter Schroeder, Judith Haendeler, Jean Krutmann, The role of near infrared radiation in photoaging of the skin, Experimental Gerontology, Volume 43, Issue 7, July 2008, Pages 629-632, ISSN 0531-5565

Dr. Janet Voke, Radiation effects on the eye, Part 1 – Infrared radiation effects on ocular tissue,Optometry Today, May 1999

Reality vs Models....reality wins every time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The dipshit who started this thread denies even the possibility that that greenhouse effect exists even though it is obvious that it does.

Please provide the mechanism by which the air is warmed by CO2 absent water vapor. I'll wait..

You're equally as stupid as the other one. CO2 does not "warm the air". The sun does that by heating the earth, which reflects IR radiation, which heats the air. CO2 keeps heat from escaping into space.

You really should get some new talking points. The ones you have are all lies and deceptions. Here is a link to a company that makes IR heaters and they explain it quite well despite your misconceptions.

"
Used by cavemen to heat themselves by fires; by Romans in their hypocausts, by log burners and tile stoves, Infrared heating has been favoured for millennia because like the heat of the sun on your surrounding environment – even during winter – Infrared heats objects, which then radiate back and keep the environment warm around you. Radiant heat does not heat air – which holds little heat and rapidly disperses.

Infrared waves travel through the air and when they touch a surface, heat energy is released regardless of the surrounding air temperature. That heat energy excites the molecules in the object it meets which being to vibrate and gain energy (and warm up). Water absorbs Far Infrared specifically well, and as our skin is 80% water, we are perfectly adapted to Far Infrared (Robinson, 2014). Far Infrared – unsurprisingly – the same band of infrared that the human body itself emits.

All objects (including people) absorb and emit infrared and whether one is absorbing or emitting depends on the difference in temperatures between objects in an environment. If objects in an environment are warmer than you are, you will warm up from them. If you are warmer than objects in an environment you will radiate out to them and feel cold. (This Infrared emission is why police Infrared cameras can see fugitives trying to escape detection). But it is also why we can still feel cold in centrally heated rooms, which only heat the air and don’t heat the objects within a room.

If you are in a centrally heated room at 21°C with your back to an outside wall at 17°C, you will be radiating heat out to that outside wall and you will therefore feel cold: regardless of the room’s “comfortable” air temperature. This underlies a fundamental difference between infrared and “convection” heating.

An experiment at the John B. Pierce Laboratory, USA, clarified the different human perceptions of heat:

“Test persons in a room with a temperature of 50°C (122°F) of warm air and cooled walls froze deplorably; when in a room with a cool air temperature of 10°C (50°F) and warm walls, they broke into an unpleasant sweat.”
(source: Techn. Info “Strahlungsenergie – die Ur-Energie, neu entdeckt, TT Technotherm GmbH, Nürnberg).

Feeling warm has nothing to do with air temperature. It is all about absorption of infrared from our surroundings (warming up) or stopping ourselves losing radiation (cooling down) to a “colder” outside.

But in the last 60 years, we have forgotten about radiant heating: not because a better technology replaced it, but because fossil fuels that powered central heating made it so cheap just to heat air."

What is Infrared Heat?

Sources:

Professor Anthony Robinson, Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Trinity College, Dublin 2.

Peter Schroeder, Judith Haendeler, Jean Krutmann, The role of near infrared radiation in photoaging of the skin, Experimental Gerontology, Volume 43, Issue 7, July 2008, Pages 629-632, ISSN 0531-5565

Dr. Janet Voke, Radiation effects on the eye, Part 1 – Infrared radiation effects on ocular tissue,Optometry Today, May 1999

Billy, what's the molar mass of infrared photons?

 

[Cosmos]

You're an imbecile. A "hotspot" has been shown to exist in the troposphere in tropical latitudes that is warming 80% faster than the temperature of the earth.

Try again, stupid.

Now you are just lying.

The below written by Scientist Bill Illis,

Here is a comment I saved that addressed this lie by using the official data:


"Here is the HadAT database for the weather balloon data going back to 1958.

The Hotspot(s) that Sherwood found are at the 300 mb level or the average height that Channel 3 shows here.

Channel 3 trend is effectively Zero.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/msu_timeseries.png

We can also get a more detailed latitude breakdown from RSS going back to 1987 (TTS or Channel 3 or 300 mb again).
Tropics. Nothing.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/tts/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TTS_Tropics_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png

Southern mid-latitudes. Negative.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/tts/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TTS_Southern Mid Latitudes_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png

Hence, one should be able to conclude that there is other data which completely contradicts Sherwood’s finding of the hotspot and he will need to show everyone exactly what he did in this paper or it will go into the dustbin like his previous attempts did."

Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2) - IOPscience

Not this again...., HA HA HA. A paper so bad that no warmist scientists are behind it. Sherwood is all alone on it. Just a few ignorant and blind warmists swallow this shit!

He was exposed as publishing crap by many, the official HadAT2 data by debunks it and he misused the Kridging process, which alone invalidate his crap.

Go look at the data fella, I posted it for you, the data doesn't support Pseudoscientist Sherwood at all. It has NEVER accepted Dr. Sherwoods claims, the data remains unchanged, still NO "hotspot" found.

It's a difficult question to analyze. Sherwood is not alone.

American Geophysical Union

From your paper...

Clip:
Using coupled‐ocean atmosphere models from CMIP 5, we highlight the discrepancy in surface temperature trends between model simulations and observations (especially over the 1979–2008 period)..........

Models...imagine that...they found a hot spot that can't be measured with a million radiosondes equipped with state of the art thermometers in a model...how completely unsurprising is that? How gullible did you say you were again?

So the question of tropical tropospheric hotspots is unsettled and controversial. That does not in any way invalidate the greenhouse effect. How gullible do you have to be to think that?

 

[SSDD]

Now you are just lying.

The below written by Scientist Bill Illis,

Here is a comment I saved that addressed this lie by using the official data:


"Here is the HadAT database for the weather balloon data going back to 1958.

The Hotspot(s) that Sherwood found are at the 300 mb level or the average height that Channel 3 shows here.

Channel 3 trend is effectively Zero.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/msu_timeseries.png

We can also get a more detailed latitude breakdown from RSS going back to 1987 (TTS or Channel 3 or 300 mb again).
Tropics. Nothing.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/tts/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TTS_Tropics_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png

Southern mid-latitudes. Negative.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/tts/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TTS_Southern Mid Latitudes_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png

Hence, one should be able to conclude that there is other data which completely contradicts Sherwood’s finding of the hotspot and he will need to show everyone exactly what he did in this paper or it will go into the dustbin like his previous attempts did."

Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2) - IOPscience

Not this again...., HA HA HA. A paper so bad that no warmist scientists are behind it. Sherwood is all alone on it. Just a few ignorant and blind warmists swallow this shit!

He was exposed as publishing crap by many, the official HadAT2 data by debunks it and he misused the Kridging process, which alone invalidate his crap.

Go look at the data fella, I posted it for you, the data doesn't support Pseudoscientist Sherwood at all. It has NEVER accepted Dr. Sherwoods claims, the data remains unchanged, still NO "hotspot" found.

It's a difficult question to analyze. Sherwood is not alone.

American Geophysical Union

From your paper...

Clip:
Using coupled‐ocean atmosphere models from CMIP 5, we highlight the discrepancy in surface temperature trends between model simulations and observations (especially over the 1979–2008 period)..........

Models...imagine that...they found a hot spot that can't be measured with a million radiosondes equipped with state of the art thermometers in a model...how completely unsurprising is that? How gullible did you say you were again?

So the question of tropical tropospheric hotspots is unsettled and controversial. That does not in any way invalidate the greenhouse effect. How gullible do you have to be to think that?

No...it is neither unsettled, nor controversial...it is absent. So says over a million radiosondes equipped with state of the art thermometers, and all of the satellite data. The only thing controversial is how the frauds who tried to claim a hot spot existed in wind retain their position within the scientific community. And of course, it serves to invalidate the greenhouse effect.

Again...in real science, a single predictive failure is sufficient to either have a hypothesis tossed out to begin work on a more workable hypothesis, or have that hypothesis modified in an effort to avoid future predictive failures. In pseudoscience, any number of predictive failures are ok so long as the funding continues.

Both the greenhouse effect hypothesis, and the AGW hypothesis have both literally littered the scientific landscape of the past 40 years with predictive failures...and the only modification that has been made to either hypothesis is a steady increase of the margin of error.....so that as their predictions deviate further and further from reality, they can make the claim that they are still within the margin of error. Note how the margin of error continues to get larger and larger as the graph moves into the future.

If this were real science, by now both the hypotheses would have been tossed out and work would have begun long ago on hypotheses that didn't litter the landscape with predictive failures...funding has continued, and in fact increased, so being pseudoscience, there is no need to adjust the actual hypothesis...all they need to do is keep increasing the margin of error so that no matter how badly they get at reflecting observations, they can still be claimed to be within the "margin of error? At present, the margin of error is larger than the actual amount of warming that has been observed. Pseudoscience masquerading as science..

 

[Billy_Bob]

The dipshit who started this thread denies even the possibility that that greenhouse effect exists even though it is obvious that it does.

Please provide the mechanism by which the air is warmed by CO2 absent water vapor. I'll wait..

You're equally as stupid as the other one. CO2 does not "warm the air". The sun does that by heating the earth, which reflects IR radiation, which heats the air. CO2 keeps heat from escaping into space.

You really should get some new talking points. The ones you have are all lies and deceptions. Here is a link to a company that makes IR heaters and they explain it quite well despite your misconceptions.

"
Used by cavemen to heat themselves by fires; by Romans in their hypocausts, by log burners and tile stoves, Infrared heating has been favoured for millennia because like the heat of the sun on your surrounding environment – even during winter – Infrared heats objects, which then radiate back and keep the environment warm around you. Radiant heat does not heat air – which holds little heat and rapidly disperses.

Infrared waves travel through the air and when they touch a surface, heat energy is released regardless of the surrounding air temperature. That heat energy excites the molecules in the object it meets which being to vibrate and gain energy (and warm up). Water absorbs Far Infrared specifically well, and as our skin is 80% water, we are perfectly adapted to Far Infrared (Robinson, 2014). Far Infrared – unsurprisingly – the same band of infrared that the human body itself emits.

All objects (including people) absorb and emit infrared and whether one is absorbing or emitting depends on the difference in temperatures between objects in an environment. If objects in an environment are warmer than you are, you will warm up from them. If you are warmer than objects in an environment you will radiate out to them and feel cold. (This Infrared emission is why police Infrared cameras can see fugitives trying to escape detection). But it is also why we can still feel cold in centrally heated rooms, which only heat the air and don’t heat the objects within a room.

If you are in a centrally heated room at 21°C with your back to an outside wall at 17°C, you will be radiating heat out to that outside wall and you will therefore feel cold: regardless of the room’s “comfortable” air temperature. This underlies a fundamental difference between infrared and “convection” heating.

An experiment at the John B. Pierce Laboratory, USA, clarified the different human perceptions of heat:

“Test persons in a room with a temperature of 50°C (122°F) of warm air and cooled walls froze deplorably; when in a room with a cool air temperature of 10°C (50°F) and warm walls, they broke into an unpleasant sweat.”
(source: Techn. Info “Strahlungsenergie – die Ur-Energie, neu entdeckt, TT Technotherm GmbH, Nürnberg).

Feeling warm has nothing to do with air temperature. It is all about absorption of infrared from our surroundings (warming up) or stopping ourselves losing radiation (cooling down) to a “colder” outside.

But in the last 60 years, we have forgotten about radiant heating: not because a better technology replaced it, but because fossil fuels that powered central heating made it so cheap just to heat air."

What is Infrared Heat?

Sources:

Professor Anthony Robinson, Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Trinity College, Dublin 2.

Peter Schroeder, Judith Haendeler, Jean Krutmann, The role of near infrared radiation in photoaging of the skin, Experimental Gerontology, Volume 43, Issue 7, July 2008, Pages 629-632, ISSN 0531-5565

Dr. Janet Voke, Radiation effects on the eye, Part 1 – Infrared radiation effects on ocular tissue,Optometry Today, May 1999

Billy, what's the molar mass of infrared photons?

QUARK material, which photons are hypothesized to be, are equal to that of a single neutron. And you know that this is a very hotly contested hypothesis, as we still argue about these theoretical particles being pure energy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The dipshit who started this thread denies even the possibility that that greenhouse effect exists even though it is obvious that it does.

Please provide the mechanism by which the air is warmed by CO2 absent water vapor. I'll wait..

You're equally as stupid as the other one. CO2 does not "warm the air". The sun does that by heating the earth, which reflects IR radiation, which heats the air. CO2 keeps heat from escaping into space.

You really should get some new talking points. The ones you have are all lies and deceptions. Here is a link to a company that makes IR heaters and they explain it quite well despite your misconceptions.

"
Used by cavemen to heat themselves by fires; by Romans in their hypocausts, by log burners and tile stoves, Infrared heating has been favoured for millennia because like the heat of the sun on your surrounding environment – even during winter – Infrared heats objects, which then radiate back and keep the environment warm around you. Radiant heat does not heat air – which holds little heat and rapidly disperses.

Infrared waves travel through the air and when they touch a surface, heat energy is released regardless of the surrounding air temperature. That heat energy excites the molecules in the object it meets which being to vibrate and gain energy (and warm up). Water absorbs Far Infrared specifically well, and as our skin is 80% water, we are perfectly adapted to Far Infrared (Robinson, 2014). Far Infrared – unsurprisingly – the same band of infrared that the human body itself emits.

All objects (including people) absorb and emit infrared and whether one is absorbing or emitting depends on the difference in temperatures between objects in an environment. If objects in an environment are warmer than you are, you will warm up from them. If you are warmer than objects in an environment you will radiate out to them and feel cold. (This Infrared emission is why police Infrared cameras can see fugitives trying to escape detection). But it is also why we can still feel cold in centrally heated rooms, which only heat the air and don’t heat the objects within a room.

If you are in a centrally heated room at 21°C with your back to an outside wall at 17°C, you will be radiating heat out to that outside wall and you will therefore feel cold: regardless of the room’s “comfortable” air temperature. This underlies a fundamental difference between infrared and “convection” heating.

An experiment at the John B. Pierce Laboratory, USA, clarified the different human perceptions of heat:

“Test persons in a room with a temperature of 50°C (122°F) of warm air and cooled walls froze deplorably; when in a room with a cool air temperature of 10°C (50°F) and warm walls, they broke into an unpleasant sweat.”
(source: Techn. Info “Strahlungsenergie – die Ur-Energie, neu entdeckt, TT Technotherm GmbH, Nürnberg).

Feeling warm has nothing to do with air temperature. It is all about absorption of infrared from our surroundings (warming up) or stopping ourselves losing radiation (cooling down) to a “colder” outside.

But in the last 60 years, we have forgotten about radiant heating: not because a better technology replaced it, but because fossil fuels that powered central heating made it so cheap just to heat air."

What is Infrared Heat?

Sources:

Professor Anthony Robinson, Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Trinity College, Dublin 2.

Peter Schroeder, Judith Haendeler, Jean Krutmann, The role of near infrared radiation in photoaging of the skin, Experimental Gerontology, Volume 43, Issue 7, July 2008, Pages 629-632, ISSN 0531-5565

Dr. Janet Voke, Radiation effects on the eye, Part 1 – Infrared radiation effects on ocular tissue,Optometry Today, May 1999

Billy, what's the molar mass of infrared photons?

QUARK material, which photons are hypothesized to be, are equal to that of a single neutron. And you know that this is a very hotly contested hypothesis, as we still argue about these theoretical particles being pure energy.

Photons have mass......because they're neutrons?

I don't believe you.

What's the molar mass of infrared photons?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Now you are just lying.

The below written by Scientist Bill Illis,

Here is a comment I saved that addressed this lie by using the official data:


"Here is the HadAT database for the weather balloon data going back to 1958.

The Hotspot(s) that Sherwood found are at the 300 mb level or the average height that Channel 3 shows here.

Channel 3 trend is effectively Zero.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/msu_timeseries.png

We can also get a more detailed latitude breakdown from RSS going back to 1987 (TTS or Channel 3 or 300 mb again).
Tropics. Nothing.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/tts/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TTS_Tropics_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png

Southern mid-latitudes. Negative.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/tts/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TTS_Southern Mid Latitudes_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png

Hence, one should be able to conclude that there is other data which completely contradicts Sherwood’s finding of the hotspot and he will need to show everyone exactly what he did in this paper or it will go into the dustbin like his previous attempts did."

Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2) - IOPscience

Not this again...., HA HA HA. A paper so bad that no warmist scientists are behind it. Sherwood is all alone on it. Just a few ignorant and blind warmists swallow this shit!

He was exposed as publishing crap by many, the official HadAT2 data by debunks it and he misused the Kridging process, which alone invalidate his crap.

Go look at the data fella, I posted it for you, the data doesn't support Pseudoscientist Sherwood at all. It has NEVER accepted Dr. Sherwoods claims, the data remains unchanged, still NO "hotspot" found.

It's a difficult question to analyze. Sherwood is not alone.

American Geophysical Union

From your paper...

Clip:
Using coupled‐ocean atmosphere models from CMIP 5, we highlight the discrepancy in surface temperature trends between model simulations and observations (especially over the 1979–2008 period)..........

Models...imagine that...they found a hot spot that can't be measured with a million radiosondes equipped with state of the art thermometers in a model...how completely unsurprising is that? How gullible did you say you were again?

So the question of tropical tropospheric hotspots is unsettled and controversial. That does not in any way invalidate the greenhouse effect. How gullible do you have to be to think that?

NO! This question has been settled by empirical experiment and evidence.

Your modeling fails without exception. The reality is no hot spot exists and that cooling of that region is caused by increased convection as indicated by the white region of colder air where thunderstorms and micro cells remove the heat faster than it can be received. The exact opposite reaction than that supposed by the AGW hypothesis.

The AGW hypothesis is not only wrong it can not predict anything and the empirical evidence is proving the exact opposite is happening. Hmmmmm.. I recall producing a paper on the Paradoxical Presentation of the earths climatic systems.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Please provide the mechanism by which the air is warmed by CO2 absent water vapor. I'll wait..

You're equally as stupid as the other one. CO2 does not "warm the air". The sun does that by heating the earth, which reflects IR radiation, which heats the air. CO2 keeps heat from escaping into space.

You really should get some new talking points. The ones you have are all lies and deceptions. Here is a link to a company that makes IR heaters and they explain it quite well despite your misconceptions.

"
Used by cavemen to heat themselves by fires; by Romans in their hypocausts, by log burners and tile stoves, Infrared heating has been favoured for millennia because like the heat of the sun on your surrounding environment – even during winter – Infrared heats objects, which then radiate back and keep the environment warm around you. Radiant heat does not heat air – which holds little heat and rapidly disperses.

Infrared waves travel through the air and when they touch a surface, heat energy is released regardless of the surrounding air temperature. That heat energy excites the molecules in the object it meets which being to vibrate and gain energy (and warm up). Water absorbs Far Infrared specifically well, and as our skin is 80% water, we are perfectly adapted to Far Infrared (Robinson, 2014). Far Infrared – unsurprisingly – the same band of infrared that the human body itself emits.

All objects (including people) absorb and emit infrared and whether one is absorbing or emitting depends on the difference in temperatures between objects in an environment. If objects in an environment are warmer than you are, you will warm up from them. If you are warmer than objects in an environment you will radiate out to them and feel cold. (This Infrared emission is why police Infrared cameras can see fugitives trying to escape detection). But it is also why we can still feel cold in centrally heated rooms, which only heat the air and don’t heat the objects within a room.

If you are in a centrally heated room at 21°C with your back to an outside wall at 17°C, you will be radiating heat out to that outside wall and you will therefore feel cold: regardless of the room’s “comfortable” air temperature. This underlies a fundamental difference between infrared and “convection” heating.

An experiment at the John B. Pierce Laboratory, USA, clarified the different human perceptions of heat:

“Test persons in a room with a temperature of 50°C (122°F) of warm air and cooled walls froze deplorably; when in a room with a cool air temperature of 10°C (50°F) and warm walls, they broke into an unpleasant sweat.”
(source: Techn. Info “Strahlungsenergie – die Ur-Energie, neu entdeckt, TT Technotherm GmbH, Nürnberg).

Feeling warm has nothing to do with air temperature. It is all about absorption of infrared from our surroundings (warming up) or stopping ourselves losing radiation (cooling down) to a “colder” outside.

But in the last 60 years, we have forgotten about radiant heating: not because a better technology replaced it, but because fossil fuels that powered central heating made it so cheap just to heat air."

What is Infrared Heat?

Sources:

Professor Anthony Robinson, Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Trinity College, Dublin 2.

Peter Schroeder, Judith Haendeler, Jean Krutmann, The role of near infrared radiation in photoaging of the skin, Experimental Gerontology, Volume 43, Issue 7, July 2008, Pages 629-632, ISSN 0531-5565

Dr. Janet Voke, Radiation effects on the eye, Part 1 – Infrared radiation effects on ocular tissue,Optometry Today, May 1999

Billy, what's the molar mass of infrared photons?

QUARK material, which photons are hypothesized to be, are equal to that of a single neutron. And you know that this is a very hotly contested hypothesis, as we still argue about these theoretical particles being pure energy.

Photons have mass......because they're neutrons?

I don't believe you.

What's the molar mass of infrared photons?

I gave you an estimated equivalency... I'm not going to debate relative physics (QM) with you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're equally as stupid as the other one. CO2 does not "warm the air". The sun does that by heating the earth, which reflects IR radiation, which heats the air. CO2 keeps heat from escaping into space.

You really should get some new talking points. The ones you have are all lies and deceptions. Here is a link to a company that makes IR heaters and they explain it quite well despite your misconceptions.

"
Used by cavemen to heat themselves by fires; by Romans in their hypocausts, by log burners and tile stoves, Infrared heating has been favoured for millennia because like the heat of the sun on your surrounding environment – even during winter – Infrared heats objects, which then radiate back and keep the environment warm around you. Radiant heat does not heat air – which holds little heat and rapidly disperses.

Infrared waves travel through the air and when they touch a surface, heat energy is released regardless of the surrounding air temperature. That heat energy excites the molecules in the object it meets which being to vibrate and gain energy (and warm up). Water absorbs Far Infrared specifically well, and as our skin is 80% water, we are perfectly adapted to Far Infrared (Robinson, 2014). Far Infrared – unsurprisingly – the same band of infrared that the human body itself emits.

All objects (including people) absorb and emit infrared and whether one is absorbing or emitting depends on the difference in temperatures between objects in an environment. If objects in an environment are warmer than you are, you will warm up from them. If you are warmer than objects in an environment you will radiate out to them and feel cold. (This Infrared emission is why police Infrared cameras can see fugitives trying to escape detection). But it is also why we can still feel cold in centrally heated rooms, which only heat the air and don’t heat the objects within a room.

If you are in a centrally heated room at 21°C with your back to an outside wall at 17°C, you will be radiating heat out to that outside wall and you will therefore feel cold: regardless of the room’s “comfortable” air temperature. This underlies a fundamental difference between infrared and “convection” heating.

An experiment at the John B. Pierce Laboratory, USA, clarified the different human perceptions of heat:

“Test persons in a room with a temperature of 50°C (122°F) of warm air and cooled walls froze deplorably; when in a room with a cool air temperature of 10°C (50°F) and warm walls, they broke into an unpleasant sweat.”
(source: Techn. Info “Strahlungsenergie – die Ur-Energie, neu entdeckt, TT Technotherm GmbH, Nürnberg).

Feeling warm has nothing to do with air temperature. It is all about absorption of infrared from our surroundings (warming up) or stopping ourselves losing radiation (cooling down) to a “colder” outside.

But in the last 60 years, we have forgotten about radiant heating: not because a better technology replaced it, but because fossil fuels that powered central heating made it so cheap just to heat air."

What is Infrared Heat?

Sources:

Professor Anthony Robinson, Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Trinity College, Dublin 2.

Peter Schroeder, Judith Haendeler, Jean Krutmann, The role of near infrared radiation in photoaging of the skin, Experimental Gerontology, Volume 43, Issue 7, July 2008, Pages 629-632, ISSN 0531-5565

Dr. Janet Voke, Radiation effects on the eye, Part 1 – Infrared radiation effects on ocular tissue,Optometry Today, May 1999

Billy, what's the molar mass of infrared photons?

QUARK material, which photons are hypothesized to be, are equal to that of a single neutron. And you know that this is a very hotly contested hypothesis, as we still argue about these theoretical particles being pure energy.

Photons have mass......because they're neutrons?

I don't believe you.

What's the molar mass of infrared photons?

I gave you an equivalency... I'm not going to debate relative physics with you.

I gave you an equivalency...

I don't want an equivalency...I want the molar mass.

I'm not going to debate relative physics with you.

I'm happy for you, because you're not very good at it.

Maybe this link can help?

Molecular Weight Calculator (Molar Mass)

 

[Billy_Bob]

You really should get some new talking points. The ones you have are all lies and deceptions. Here is a link to a company that makes IR heaters and they explain it quite well despite your misconceptions.

"
Used by cavemen to heat themselves by fires; by Romans in their hypocausts, by log burners and tile stoves, Infrared heating has been favoured for millennia because like the heat of the sun on your surrounding environment – even during winter – Infrared heats objects, which then radiate back and keep the environment warm around you. Radiant heat does not heat air – which holds little heat and rapidly disperses.

Infrared waves travel through the air and when they touch a surface, heat energy is released regardless of the surrounding air temperature. That heat energy excites the molecules in the object it meets which being to vibrate and gain energy (and warm up). Water absorbs Far Infrared specifically well, and as our skin is 80% water, we are perfectly adapted to Far Infrared (Robinson, 2014). Far Infrared – unsurprisingly – the same band of infrared that the human body itself emits.

All objects (including people) absorb and emit infrared and whether one is absorbing or emitting depends on the difference in temperatures between objects in an environment. If objects in an environment are warmer than you are, you will warm up from them. If you are warmer than objects in an environment you will radiate out to them and feel cold. (This Infrared emission is why police Infrared cameras can see fugitives trying to escape detection). But it is also why we can still feel cold in centrally heated rooms, which only heat the air and don’t heat the objects within a room.

If you are in a centrally heated room at 21°C with your back to an outside wall at 17°C, you will be radiating heat out to that outside wall and you will therefore feel cold: regardless of the room’s “comfortable” air temperature. This underlies a fundamental difference between infrared and “convection” heating.

An experiment at the John B. Pierce Laboratory, USA, clarified the different human perceptions of heat:

“Test persons in a room with a temperature of 50°C (122°F) of warm air and cooled walls froze deplorably; when in a room with a cool air temperature of 10°C (50°F) and warm walls, they broke into an unpleasant sweat.”
(source: Techn. Info “Strahlungsenergie – die Ur-Energie, neu entdeckt, TT Technotherm GmbH, Nürnberg).

Feeling warm has nothing to do with air temperature. It is all about absorption of infrared from our surroundings (warming up) or stopping ourselves losing radiation (cooling down) to a “colder” outside.

But in the last 60 years, we have forgotten about radiant heating: not because a better technology replaced it, but because fossil fuels that powered central heating made it so cheap just to heat air."

What is Infrared Heat?

Sources:

Professor Anthony Robinson, Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Trinity College, Dublin 2.

Peter Schroeder, Judith Haendeler, Jean Krutmann, The role of near infrared radiation in photoaging of the skin, Experimental Gerontology, Volume 43, Issue 7, July 2008, Pages 629-632, ISSN 0531-5565

Dr. Janet Voke, Radiation effects on the eye, Part 1 – Infrared radiation effects on ocular tissue,Optometry Today, May 1999

Billy, what's the molar mass of infrared photons?

QUARK material, which photons are hypothesized to be, are equal to that of a single neutron. And you know that this is a very hotly contested hypothesis, as we still argue about these theoretical particles being pure energy.

Photons have mass......because they're neutrons?

I don't believe you.

What's the molar mass of infrared photons?

I gave you an equivalency... I'm not going to debate relative physics with you.

I gave you an equivalency...

I don't want an equivalency...I want the molar mass.

I'm not going to debate relative physics with you.

I'm happy for you, because you're not very good at it.

Maybe this link can help?

Molecular Weight Calculator (Molar Mass)

Its a whole lot more complicated than that.. First you need to know how much of this radiation is present and at what wavelengths. Then you need to know the change rate of the BB or GB mass it is striking. At this point determining mass is a guess at best, as it is not quantifiable as an atoms mass is.

Again this is a hotly debated subject. One you disbelieve, so trying to explain it to you is a pointless endevour.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Billy, what's the molar mass of infrared photons?

QUARK material, which photons are hypothesized to be, are equal to that of a single neutron. And you know that this is a very hotly contested hypothesis, as we still argue about these theoretical particles being pure energy.

Photons have mass......because they're neutrons?

I don't believe you.

What's the molar mass of infrared photons?

I gave you an equivalency... I'm not going to debate relative physics with you.

I gave you an equivalency...

I don't want an equivalency...I want the molar mass.

I'm not going to debate relative physics with you.

I'm happy for you, because you're not very good at it.

Maybe this link can help?

Molecular Weight Calculator (Molar Mass)

Its a whole lot more complicated than that.. First you need to know how much of this radiation is present and at what wavelengths. Then you need to know the change rate of the BB or GB mass it is striking. At this point determining mass is a guess at best, as it is not quantifiable as an atoms mass is.

Again this is a hotly debated subject. One you disbelieve, so trying to explain it to you is a pointless endevour.

Its a whole lot more complicated than that.. First you need to know how much of this radiation is present and at what wavelengths.

Great.

What's the molar mass of infrared photons?

What's the molar mass of UV photons?

What's the molar mass of X-ray photons?
​

Then you need to know the change rate of the BB or GB mass it is striking​

The mass of a photon changes, based on its target? And the target's "change rate"?

Are you so jealous of SSDD's epicycles that you've decided to create your own?​

​

Again this is a hotly debated subject.​

What is there to debate? You said a photon has mass. Tell me how much mass.
Or link to someone who can tell me how much mass.​

​

One you disbelieve​

And you believe, so post your back up already. Dispel my disbelief.

Or spew more bullshit, like you always do.​

 

[Cosmos]

Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2) - IOPscience

Not this again...., HA HA HA. A paper so bad that no warmist scientists are behind it. Sherwood is all alone on it. Just a few ignorant and blind warmists swallow this shit!

He was exposed as publishing crap by many, the official HadAT2 data by debunks it and he misused the Kridging process, which alone invalidate his crap.

Go look at the data fella, I posted it for you, the data doesn't support Pseudoscientist Sherwood at all. It has NEVER accepted Dr. Sherwoods claims, the data remains unchanged, still NO "hotspot" found.

It's a difficult question to analyze. Sherwood is not alone.

American Geophysical Union

From your paper...

Clip:
Using coupled‐ocean atmosphere models from CMIP 5, we highlight the discrepancy in surface temperature trends between model simulations and observations (especially over the 1979–2008 period)..........

Models...imagine that...they found a hot spot that can't be measured with a million radiosondes equipped with state of the art thermometers in a model...how completely unsurprising is that? How gullible did you say you were again?

So the question of tropical tropospheric hotspots is unsettled and controversial. That does not in any way invalidate the greenhouse effect. How gullible do you have to be to think that?

NO! This question has been settled by empirical experiment and evidence.

View attachment 270042

Your modeling fails without exception. The reality is no hot spot exists and that cooling of that region is caused by increased convection as indicated by the white region of colder air where thunderstorms and micro cells remove the heat faster than it can be received. The exact opposite reaction than that supposed by the AGW hypothesis.

The AGW hypothesis is not only wrong it can not predict anything and the empirical evidence is proving the exact opposite is happening. Hmmmmm.. I recall producing a paper on the Paradoxical Presentation of the earths climatic systems.

Bullshit. That's just garbage. Show me something from NASA/NOAA that says global warming is invalid because there's not "hotspot".

 

[SSDD]

Not this again...., HA HA HA. A paper so bad that no warmist scientists are behind it. Sherwood is all alone on it. Just a few ignorant and blind warmists swallow this shit!

He was exposed as publishing crap by many, the official HadAT2 data by debunks it and he misused the Kridging process, which alone invalidate his crap.

Go look at the data fella, I posted it for you, the data doesn't support Pseudoscientist Sherwood at all. It has NEVER accepted Dr. Sherwoods claims, the data remains unchanged, still NO "hotspot" found.

It's a difficult question to analyze. Sherwood is not alone.

American Geophysical Union

From your paper...

Clip:
Using coupled‐ocean atmosphere models from CMIP 5, we highlight the discrepancy in surface temperature trends between model simulations and observations (especially over the 1979–2008 period)..........

Models...imagine that...they found a hot spot that can't be measured with a million radiosondes equipped with state of the art thermometers in a model...how completely unsurprising is that? How gullible did you say you were again?

So the question of tropical tropospheric hotspots is unsettled and controversial. That does not in any way invalidate the greenhouse effect. How gullible do you have to be to think that?

NO! This question has been settled by empirical experiment and evidence.

View attachment 270042

Your modeling fails without exception. The reality is no hot spot exists and that cooling of that region is caused by increased convection as indicated by the white region of colder air where thunderstorms and micro cells remove the heat faster than it can be received. The exact opposite reaction than that supposed by the AGW hypothesis.

The AGW hypothesis is not only wrong it can not predict anything and the empirical evidence is proving the exact opposite is happening. Hmmmmm.. I recall producing a paper on the Paradoxical Presentation of the earths climatic systems.

Bullshit. That's just garbage. Show me something from NASA/NOAA that says global warming is invalid because there's not "hotspot".

Are you under the impression that NASA/NOAA are in charge of the AGW hypothesis?

And again, you don't seem to be able to grasp the topic...No one is disputing that the earth has been warming...after all, it is still exiting the little ice age...the dispute is whether we are causing it...and at this point, even if the greenhouse hypothesis is worth looking at since it has produced so many predictive failures.

The greenhouse hypothesis predicts a tropospheric hot spot, and a decrease in outgoing long wave radiation...these two things were supposed to validate the fact that additional CO2 caused warming...both failed..and in fact, reality shows us that exactly the opposite is happening. The tropospheric hot spot, and decrease in outgoing long wave radiation due to the "trapping" of heat which is supposed to be causing the hot spot was supposed to be the fingerprint of greenhouse warming...it isn't there...something else caused the warming...and one doesn't have to look far to see what.

Unfortunately you can't even discuss the basics of the hypothetical greenhouse effect, so it isn't even possible to describe to you what is actually happening and why a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science simply is not possible.

 

[Cosmos]

Are you under the impression that NASA/NOAA are in charge of the AGW hypothesis?

I think they're a more reliable source than some dipshit on the internet that refuses to believe greenhouse effect is even possible. I think the next paper you need to link is one that proves you're not a total idiot. Your silly-ass denier papers don't prove a thing.

Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Life on Earth depends on energy coming from the Sun. About half the light reaching Earth's atmosphere passes through the air and clouds to the surface, where it is absorbed and then radiated upward in the form of infrared heat. About 90 percent of this heat is then absorbed by the greenhouse gases and radiated back toward the surface, which is warmed to a life-supporting average of 59 degrees Fahrenheit (15 degrees Celsius).


Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases that remain semi-permanently in the atmosphere and do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change. Gases, such as water vapor, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as "feedbacks."

 

[otto105]

Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2) - IOPscience

Not this again...., HA HA HA. A paper so bad that no warmist scientists are behind it. Sherwood is all alone on it. Just a few ignorant and blind warmists swallow this shit!

He was exposed as publishing crap by many, the official HadAT2 data by debunks it and he misused the Kridging process, which alone invalidate his crap.

Go look at the data fella, I posted it for you, the data doesn't support Pseudoscientist Sherwood at all. It has NEVER accepted Dr. Sherwoods claims, the data remains unchanged, still NO "hotspot" found.

It's a difficult question to analyze. Sherwood is not alone.

American Geophysical Union

From your paper...

Clip:
Using coupled‐ocean atmosphere models from CMIP 5, we highlight the discrepancy in surface temperature trends between model simulations and observations (especially over the 1979–2008 period)..........

Models...imagine that...they found a hot spot that can't be measured with a million radiosondes equipped with state of the art thermometers in a model...how completely unsurprising is that? How gullible did you say you were again?

So the question of tropical tropospheric hotspots is unsettled and controversial. That does not in any way invalidate the greenhouse effect. How gullible do you have to be to think that?

NO! This question has been settled by empirical experiment and evidence.

View attachment 270042

Your modeling fails without exception. The reality is no hot spot exists and that cooling of that region is caused by increased convection as indicated by the white region of colder air where thunderstorms and micro cells remove the heat faster than it can be received. The exact opposite reaction than that supposed by the AGW hypothesis.

The AGW hypothesis is not only wrong it can not predict anything and the empirical evidence is proving the exact opposite is happening. Hmmmmm.. I recall producing a paper on the Paradoxical Presentation of the earths climatic systems.

Source of graphs and year produced.