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

[otto105]

Reality Check Time

Has any denier posted one scientific organization conclusion that confirms their position that AGW is NOT happening due to man-made actives.

 

[Cosmos]

Reality Check Time

Has any denier posted one scientific organization conclusion that confirms their position that AGW is NOT happening due to man-made actives.

Yeah, I'd also like the see the scientific organization that's published a paper proving how the greenhouse effect isn't even possible.

 

[SSDD]

Reality Check Time

Has any denier posted one scientific organization conclusion that confirms their position that AGW is NOT happening due to man-made actives.

repeating a logical fallacy is not going to get you any closer to supporting the greenhouse effect.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Reality Check Time

Has any denier posted one scientific organization conclusion that confirms their position that AGW is NOT happening due to man-made actives.

Right back to an appeal to authority in the face of massive empirical evidence to the contrary... Do you fools ever get tired of running in circles?

 

[SSDD]

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.

Why would you think that? They have been caught tampering with data...Hundreds of billion dollars of funding depends on them maintaining the narrative, and literally thousands of jobs and careers. What exactly makes them a reliable source? Is data tampering a rational scientific tactic in your mind?

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

More claims with no actual evidence to back them up. What did you say makes them a reliable source?

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).

Yeah...we have been through that as well. If 90% of the energy that is radiated by the surface of the planet were radiated back towards the surface, then there would be a tropospheric hot spot, and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere would be dropping...there is no tropospheric hot spot...and the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere is increasing. Then there is the second law of thermodynamics.

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

Tell me, what do you think that means in the context of a claim that either heat, or energy is moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth? Do you think the greenhouse effect was granted a special dispensation from the second law of thermodynamics and somehow allowed to spontaneously move energy from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth? Had there ever been an observation, or measurement of energy spontaneously moving from cool to warm, it would have invalidated the second law of thermodynamics and it would be tossed out. You keep ignoring these critical questions and going right back to the same old boilerplate talking points that these questions are asking about.

No tropospheric hot spot, and the energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere is increasing...precisely the opposite of what the greenhouse effect predicts. Failed predictions. Once again, in real science, a single failed prediction is enough to have a hypothesis tossed out, or at the very least have it modified in order to avoid future predictive failures...In pseudoscience, any number of predictive failures are ok so long as funding continues.

Now...aside from the whole business regarding the second law of thermodynamics, and the fact that neither heat nor energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm, lets look at what is actually happening with energy in the atmosphere. The claim is that 90% of the energy that is absorbed by greenhouse gasses is then radiated back to the surface is a bold faced lie. Even if every greenhouse gas molecule that absorbs a photon were able to actually emit that energy in the form of a photon, and even if they could emit that energy back to the warmer surface of the earth, they would be emitting that energy in random directions...that being the case, even if they could radiate energy back to the warmer surface of the earth, if they were radiating in random directions, only about 30% of the radiation would be aimed towards the surface...the rest would be going off in other random directions.

That whole scenario, and the radiative greenhouse effect itself depends on greenhouse gas molecules absorbing energy radiated by the surface of the earth and then emitting photons most of which go back to the surface of the earth. Lets take a look at how energy actually moves through the atmosphere as opposed to the flawed model which experiences predictive failure after predictive failure.

Here is an email reply from Dr. William Happer, a top shelf physicist, recognized by the world to be at the top of his profession, to someone who attended one of his lectures and had some questions regarding energy movement in the atmosphere... The questions are in black and Dr. Happer's responses/comments are in blue. I will add an underscore to parts that I believe are particularly important to this conversation.

From: William Happer Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:29 AM
To: David Burton
Dear David,

Some response are entered below in square brackets and upper case. Thanks for your interest!

Will


From:David Burton
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:49 PM
To: William Happer
Subject: Another dumb question from Dave

Dear Prof. Happer,

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]


You didn't mention it, but I assume H2O molecules have a similar decay time to emit an IR photon. Is that right, too? [YES. I CAN'T IMMEDIATELY FIND A SIMILAR PAPER TO THE ONE I ATTACHED ABOUT CO2, BUT THESE TRANSITIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY STUDIED IN CONNECTION WITH INTERSTELLAR MASERS. I ATTACH SOME NICE VIEWGRAPHS THAT SUMMARIZE THE ISSUES, A FEW OF WHICH TOUCH ON H2O, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT INTERSTELLAR MOLECULES. ALAS, THE SLIDES DO NOT INCLUDE A TABLE OF LIFETIMES. BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRACK THEM DOWN FROM REFERENCES ON THE VIEWGRAPHS IF YOU LIKE. ROUGHLY SPEAKING, THE RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENTS SCALE AS THE CUBE OF THE WAVELENTH AND INVERSELY AS THE SQUARE OF THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MATRIX ELEMENT (FROM BASIC QUANTUM MECHANICS) SO IF AN ATOM HAS A RADIATIVE LIFETIME OF 16 NSEC AT A WAVELENGTH OF 0.6 MIRONS (SODIUM), A CO2 BENDING MODE TRANSITION, WITH A WAVELENGTH OF 15 MICRONS AND ABOUT 1/30 THE MATRIX ELEMENT SHOULD HAVE A LIFETIME OF ORDER 16 (30)^2 (15/.6)^3 NS = 0.2 S.


So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, not by re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]


In other words, the very widely repeated description of GHG molecules absorbing infrared photons and then re-emitting them in random directions is only correct for about one absorbed photon in a billion. True? [YES, IT IS THIS EXTREME SLOWNESS OF RADIATIVE DECAY RATES THAT ALLOWS THE CO2 MOLECULES IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO HAVE VERY NEARLY THE SAME VIBRATION-ROTATION TEMPERATURE OF THE LOCAL AIR MOLECULES.]


Here's an example from the NSF, with a lovely animated picture, which even illustrates the correct vibrational mode:

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

Am I correct in thinking that illustration is wrong for about 99.9999999% of the photons which CO2 absorbs in the lower troposphere? [YES, THE PICTURE IS A BIT MISLEADING. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE COULD RADIATE COMPLETELY WITH NO COLLISIONAL INTERRUPTIONS, THE LENGTH OF THE RADIATIVE PULSE WOULD BE THE DISTANCE LIGHT CAN TRAVEL IN THE RADIATIVE LIFETIME. SO THE PULSE IN THE NSF FIGURE SHOULD BE 300,000 KM LONG, FROM THE EARTH'S SURFACE TO WELL BEYOND A SATELLITE IN GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT. THE RADIATED PULSE SHOULD CONTAIN 667 CM^{-1} *3 X 10^{10} CM S^{-1}*1 S WAVES OR ABOUT 2 TRILLION WAVES, NOT JUST A FEW AS IN THE FIGURE. A BIT OF POETIC LICENSE IS OK. I CERTAINLY PLEAD GUILTY TO USING SOME ON MY VIEWGRAPHS. BUT WE SHOULD NOT MAKE TRILLION-DOLLAR ECONOMIC DECISIONS WITHOUT MORE QUANTITATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE PHYSICS.]


(Aside: it doesn't really shock me that the NSF is wrong -- I previously caught them contradicting Archimedes: before & after.)

If that NSF web page & illustration were right, then the amount of IR emitted by CO2 or H2O vapor in the atmosphere would depend heavily on how much IR it received and absorbed. If more IR was emitted from the ground, then more IR would be re-emitted by the CO2 and H2O molecules, back toward the ground. But I think that must be wrong. [YES, THE AMOUNT OF RADIATION EMITTED BY GREENHOUSE MOLECULES DEPENDS ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THEIR TEMPERATURE. THE PERTRUBATION BY RADIATION COMING FROM THE GROUND OR OUTER SPACE IS NEGLIGIBLE. CO2 LASER BUILDERS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY WITH CUNNING DISCHARE PHYSICS TO GET THE CO2 MOLECULES OUT OF THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM SO THEY CAN AMPLIFY RADIATION.]


If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT CHANDRASEKHAR CALLS AN “ABSORBING ATMOSPHERE” AS OPPOSED TO A “SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE.” ASTROPHYSICISTS ARE OFTEN MORE INTERESTED IN SCATTERING ATMOSPHERES, LIKE THE INTERIOR OF THE SUN. THE BLUE SKY DURING A CLEAR DAY IS AN EXAMPLE OF SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE. VERY LITTLE HEATING OR COOLING OF THE AIR OCCURS WITH THIS “RAYLEIGH SCATTERING.”]


Thank you for educating a dumb old computer scientist like me! [YOU ARE HARDLY DUMB. YOU GET AN A+ FOR THIS RECITATION SESSION ON RADIATIVE TRANSFER. ]

So, if only one CO2 molecule per billion that absorbs a photon of energy radiating from the surface actually gets to emit a photon, what are the ramifications of that fact to the hypothesis which states that 90% of the energy absorbed by CO2 gets radiated back to the surface of the earth...never mind the second law of themodynamics which states that it can't happen anyway?

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.

And yet, there has never been a single paper published in which the warming due to our activities and greenhouse gas production has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to greenhouse gasses. You would think that in order to attribute an effect and a cause like that, at least one paper would have been published which measured, and quantified the effect and actually blamed it on greenhouse gasses wouldn't you? I mean, if we were talking about real sceince instead of pseudoscience that is.

And then there is the fact that there is no observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere while there is an overwhelming body of experimental, developmental, observational, and practical evidence from the infrared heating industry which demonstrates that infrared radiation does not warm t

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."

So, if these "certain gasses" are blocking heat from escaping the atmosphere, where is the tropospheric hot spot? You keep repeating this claim which is central to the greenhouse hypothesis...which is also a predictive failure. If these "certain gasses" were in fact, blocking heat from escaping the atmosphere, the inevitable result would be a tropospheric hot spot...it isn't there...a million + radiosondes equipped with state of the art thermometers, and a host of satellites have failed to detect anything like a tropospheric hot spot. And in order for a tropospheric hot spot to exist, it would mean that there would be a reduction in the amount of energy escaping the earth at the top of the atmosphere...satellite measurement tells us that the amount of energy that is escaping the atmosphere is increasing...not decreasing as the greenhouse hypothesis predicts...yet another blatant predictive failure of the hypothesis..and as we know, even a single predictive failure, in real science, is enough to have a hypothesis tossed out and have work begin on a new hypothesis, or at the very least, cause the hypothesis to be modified in an effort to avoid future predictive failures...we also know that in pseudoscience, any number of predictive failures are OK so long as the funding continues.

How about you stop repeating obviously failed predictions made by the greenhouse hypothesis and start discussing why the failures keep occurring...and why the hypothesis doesn't get modified in an attempt to prevent future predictive failures.

 

[SSDD]

Source of graphs and year produced.

The graph showing the modeled tropospheric hot spot is from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows the pattern of temperature changes the models predict for greenhouse gas-induced warming.

The second graph is produced by the US Climate Change Science Program and shows actual observations as opposed to the predictions of the models. If that hotspot existed, it would require less energy escaping from the top of the atmosphere..NOAA/NASA satellites show us that the amount of energy escaping the top of the atmosphere is increasing and has been for a good long time.

 

[SSDD]

Reality Check Time

Has any denier posted one scientific organization conclusion that confirms their position that AGW is NOT happening due to man-made actives.

Yeah, I'd also like the see the scientific organization that's published a paper proving how the greenhouse effect isn't even possible.

Scientific organizations tend not to publish scientific papers...papers are published by scientists who tend to belong to scientific organizations...and if you would like to see some papers on alternatives to the greenhouse hypothesis...papers which, by the way, accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere, while the greenhouse hypothesis can only predict the temperature here, and only then if you apply an entirely ad hoc (made up) fudge factor, I will be glad to provide you with some. Although I am pretty sure that you won't bother to read them, and even if you did, you will reject the information they provide because of your political leanings...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Clip: This study examines the concept of ‘greenhouse gases’ and various definitions of the phenomenon known as the ‘Atmospheric Radiative Greenhouse Effect’. The six most quoted descriptions are as follows: (a) radiation trapped between the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere; (b) the insulating blanket of the atmosphere that keeps the Earth warm; (c) back radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface; (d) Infra Red absorbing gases that hinder radiative cooling and keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be – known as ‘otherwise radiation’; (e) differences between actual surface temperatures of the Earth (as also observed on Venus) and those based on calculations; (f) any gas that absorbs infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface towards free space. It is shown that none of the above descriptions can withstand the rigours of scientific scrutiny when the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics are applied to them.

New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model

Clip: A recent study has revealed that the Earth’s natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 K or about 2.7 times stronger than assumed for the past 40 years. A thermal enhancement of such a magnitude cannot be explained with the observed amount of outgoing infrared long-wave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere (i.e. ≈ 158 W m-2), thus requiring a re-examination of the underlying Greenhouse theory. We present here a new investigation into the physical nature of the atmospheric thermal effect using a novel empirical approach toward predicting the Global Mean Annual near-surface equilibrium Temperature (GMAT) of rocky planets with diverse atmospheres. Our method utilizes Dimensional Analysis (DA) applied to a vetted set of observed data from six celestial bodies representing a broad range of physical environments in our Solar System, i.e. Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars, Titan (a moon of Saturn), and Triton (a moon of Neptune). Twelve relationships (models) suggested by DA are explored via non-linear regression analyses that involve dimensionless products comprised of solar irradiance, greenhouse-gas partial pressure/density and total atmospheric pressure/density as forcing variables, and two temperature ratios as dependent variables. One non-linear regression model is found to statistically outperform the rest by a wide margin. Our analysis revealed that GMATs of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure. The hereto discovered interplanetary pressure-temperature relationship is shown to be statistically robust while describing a smooth physical continuum without climatic tipping points. This continuum fully explains the recently discovered 90 K thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that has important theoretical implications. A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition. Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. Our empirical model has also fundamental implications for the role of oceans, water vapour, and planetary albedo in global climate. Since produced by a rigorous attempt to describe planetary temperatures in the context of a cosmic continuum using an objective analysis of vetted observations from across the Solar System, these findings call for a paradigm shift in our understanding of the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ as a fundamental property of climate.


The Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory and a Proposal for a Hopeful Alternative

Clip: In view of the global acceptance and the political relevance of the climate greenhouse theory–or rather philosophy- it appeared necessary to deliver a synoptic presentation enabling a detailed exemplary refutation. It focuses the foundations of the theory assuming that a theory cannot be correct when its foundations are not correct. Thus, above all, a critical historical review is made. As a spin-off of this study, the Lambert-Beer law is questioned suggesting an alternative approach. Moreover, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is relativized revealing the different characters of the two temperature terms. But in particular, the author’s recently published own work is quoted revealing novelmeasurement methods and yielding several crucial arguments, while finally an empiric proof is presented.

The cardinal error in the usual greenhouse theory consists in the assumption that photometric or spectroscopic IR-measurements allow conclusions about the thermal behaviour of gases, i.e., of the atmosphere. They trace back to John Tyndall who developed such a photometric method already in the 19th century. However, direct thermal measurement methods have never been applied so far. Apart from this, at least twenty crucial errors are revealed which suggest abandoning the theory as a whole.

In spite of its obvious deficiencies, this theory has so far been an obstacle to take promising precautions formitigating the climate change. They would consist in a general brightening of the Earth surface, and in additional measures being related to this. However, the novel effects which were found by the author, particularly the absorptionof incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influencedby human acts. But their discovery may contribute to a better understanding of the atmospheric processes.

Holmes, 2017

Clip:
Presented here is a simple and reliable method of accurately calculating the average near surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies which possess a surface atmospheric pressure of over 10kPa [a thick atmosphere, 0.1 bar or more]. This method requires a gas constant and the knowledge of only three gas parameters: [1] the average near-surface atmospheric pressure, [2] the average near surface atmospheric density and [3] the average mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere. The formula used is the molar version of the ideal gas law.
It is here demonstrated that the information contained in just these three gas parameters alone is an extremely accurate predictor of atmospheric temperatures on planets with atmospheres >10kPa. This indicates that all information on the effective plus the residual near-surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies with thick atmospheres, is automatically ‘baked-in’ to the three mentioned gas parameters.

This formula proves itself here to be not only more accurate than any other method heretofore used, but is far simpler to calculate. It requires no input from parameters previously thought to be essential; solar insolation, albedo, greenhouse gas content, ocean circulation and cloud cover among many others.

Given this, it is shown that no one gas has an anomalous effect on atmospheric temperatures that is significantly more than any other gas.

In short, there can be no 33°C ‘greenhouse effect’ on Earth, or any significant ‘greenhouse effect’ on any other planetary body with an atmosphere of >10kPa.


https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/unified_theory_of_climate.pdf

Clip:
In other words, our results suggest that the GH effect is a thermodynamic phenomenon, not a radiative one as presently assumed. This finding leads to a new and very different paradigm of climate controls. Results from our research are combined with those from other studies to propose a Unified Theory of Climate, which explains a number of phenomena that the current theory fails to explain. Implications of the new paradigm for predicting future climate trends are briefly discussed.

 

[Billy_Bob]

.NOAA/NASA satellites show us that the amount of energy escaping the top of the atmosphere is increasing and has been for a good long time.

It also parallels the solar SWIR increase, indicating there is nothing slowing increased solar radiation from escaping as the AGW premise hypothesizes. (increase is directly proportional to BB release at TOA)

 

[SSDD]

.NOAA/NASA satellites show us that the amount of energy escaping the top of the atmosphere is increasing and has been for a good long time.

It also parallels the solar SWIR increase, indicating there is nothing slowing increased solar radiation from escaping as the AGW premise hypothesizes. (increase is directly proportional to BB release at TOA)

Of course as the solar cycle deepens into minimum, both the energy coming in and the energy going out could be expected to decrease.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reality Check Time

Has any denier posted one scientific organization conclusion that confirms their position that AGW is NOT happening due to man-made actives.

Right back to an appeal to authority in the face of massive empirical evidence to the contrary... Do you fools ever get tired of running in circles?

Still looking for the molar mass? Or any backup? At all? Durr

 

[otto105]

Reality Check Time

Has any denier posted one scientific organization conclusion that confirms their position that AGW is NOT happening due to man-made actives.

Yeah, I'd also like the see the scientific organization that's published a paper proving how the greenhouse effect isn't even possible.

Scientific organizations tend not to publish scientific papers...papers are published by scientists who tend to belong to scientific organizations...and if you would like to see some papers on alternatives to the greenhouse hypothesis...papers which, by the way, accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere, while the greenhouse hypothesis can only predict the temperature here, and only then if you apply an entirely ad hoc (made up) fudge factor, I will be glad to provide you with some. Although I am pretty sure that you won't bother to read them, and even if you did, you will reject the information they provide because of your political leanings...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Clip: This study examines the concept of ‘greenhouse gases’ and various definitions of the phenomenon known as the ‘Atmospheric Radiative Greenhouse Effect’. The six most quoted descriptions are as follows: (a) radiation trapped between the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere; (b) the insulating blanket of the atmosphere that keeps the Earth warm; (c) back radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface; (d) Infra Red absorbing gases that hinder radiative cooling and keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be – known as ‘otherwise radiation’; (e) differences between actual surface temperatures of the Earth (as also observed on Venus) and those based on calculations; (f) any gas that absorbs infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface towards free space. It is shown that none of the above descriptions can withstand the rigours of scientific scrutiny when the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics are applied to them.

New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model

Clip: A recent study has revealed that the Earth’s natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 K or about 2.7 times stronger than assumed for the past 40 years. A thermal enhancement of such a magnitude cannot be explained with the observed amount of outgoing infrared long-wave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere (i.e. ≈ 158 W m-2), thus requiring a re-examination of the underlying Greenhouse theory. We present here a new investigation into the physical nature of the atmospheric thermal effect using a novel empirical approach toward predicting the Global Mean Annual near-surface equilibrium Temperature (GMAT) of rocky planets with diverse atmospheres. Our method utilizes Dimensional Analysis (DA) applied to a vetted set of observed data from six celestial bodies representing a broad range of physical environments in our Solar System, i.e. Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars, Titan (a moon of Saturn), and Triton (a moon of Neptune). Twelve relationships (models) suggested by DA are explored via non-linear regression analyses that involve dimensionless products comprised of solar irradiance, greenhouse-gas partial pressure/density and total atmospheric pressure/density as forcing variables, and two temperature ratios as dependent variables. One non-linear regression model is found to statistically outperform the rest by a wide margin. Our analysis revealed that GMATs of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure. The hereto discovered interplanetary pressure-temperature relationship is shown to be statistically robust while describing a smooth physical continuum without climatic tipping points. This continuum fully explains the recently discovered 90 K thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that has important theoretical implications. A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition. Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. Our empirical model has also fundamental implications for the role of oceans, water vapour, and planetary albedo in global climate. Since produced by a rigorous attempt to describe planetary temperatures in the context of a cosmic continuum using an objective analysis of vetted observations from across the Solar System, these findings call for a paradigm shift in our understanding of the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ as a fundamental property of climate.


The Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory and a Proposal for a Hopeful Alternative

Clip: In view of the global acceptance and the political relevance of the climate greenhouse theory–or rather philosophy- it appeared necessary to deliver a synoptic presentation enabling a detailed exemplary refutation. It focuses the foundations of the theory assuming that a theory cannot be correct when its foundations are not correct. Thus, above all, a critical historical review is made. As a spin-off of this study, the Lambert-Beer law is questioned suggesting an alternative approach. Moreover, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is relativized revealing the different characters of the two temperature terms. But in particular, the author’s recently published own work is quoted revealing novelmeasurement methods and yielding several crucial arguments, while finally an empiric proof is presented.

The cardinal error in the usual greenhouse theory consists in the assumption that photometric or spectroscopic IR-measurements allow conclusions about the thermal behaviour of gases, i.e., of the atmosphere. They trace back to John Tyndall who developed such a photometric method already in the 19th century. However, direct thermal measurement methods have never been applied so far. Apart from this, at least twenty crucial errors are revealed which suggest abandoning the theory as a whole.

In spite of its obvious deficiencies, this theory has so far been an obstacle to take promising precautions formitigating the climate change. They would consist in a general brightening of the Earth surface, and in additional measures being related to this. However, the novel effects which were found by the author, particularly the absorptionof incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influencedby human acts. But their discovery may contribute to a better understanding of the atmospheric processes.

Holmes, 2017

Clip:
Presented here is a simple and reliable method of accurately calculating the average near surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies which possess a surface atmospheric pressure of over 10kPa [a thick atmosphere, 0.1 bar or more]. This method requires a gas constant and the knowledge of only three gas parameters: [1] the average near-surface atmospheric pressure, [2] the average near surface atmospheric density and [3] the average mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere. The formula used is the molar version of the ideal gas law.
It is here demonstrated that the information contained in just these three gas parameters alone is an extremely accurate predictor of atmospheric temperatures on planets with atmospheres >10kPa. This indicates that all information on the effective plus the residual near-surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies with thick atmospheres, is automatically ‘baked-in’ to the three mentioned gas parameters.

This formula proves itself here to be not only more accurate than any other method heretofore used, but is far simpler to calculate. It requires no input from parameters previously thought to be essential; solar insolation, albedo, greenhouse gas content, ocean circulation and cloud cover among many others.

Given this, it is shown that no one gas has an anomalous effect on atmospheric temperatures that is significantly more than any other gas.

In short, there can be no 33°C ‘greenhouse effect’ on Earth, or any significant ‘greenhouse effect’ on any other planetary body with an atmosphere of >10kPa.


https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/unified_theory_of_climate.pdf

Clip:
In other words, our results suggest that the GH effect is a thermodynamic phenomenon, not a radiative one as presently assumed. This finding leads to a new and very different paradigm of climate controls. Results from our research are combined with those from other studies to propose a Unified Theory of Climate, which explains a number of phenomena that the current theory fails to explain. Implications of the new paradigm for predicting future climate trends are briefly discussed.

So the answer to the question is still no.

 

[otto105]

Reality Check Time

Has any denier posted one scientific organization conclusion that confirms their position that AGW is NOT happening due to man-made actives.

Right back to an appeal to authority in the face of massive empirical evidence to the contrary... Do you fools ever get tired of running in circles?

So NO scientific organization is willing to stand behind "massive empirical evidence" and declare global warming a hoax.

What? They don't risk their creditably for you deniers.

 

[otto105]

Reality Check Time

Has any denier posted one scientific organization conclusion that confirms their position that AGW is NOT happening due to man-made actives.

repeating a logical fallacy is not going to get you any closer to supporting the greenhouse effect.

So, no scientific organization is willing to risk their credibility for deniers?

Huh....

 

[otto105]

Source of graphs and year produced.

The graph showing the modeled tropospheric hot spot is from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows the pattern of temperature changes the models predict for greenhouse gas-induced warming.

The second graph is produced by the US Climate Change Science Program and shows actual observations as opposed to the predictions of the models. If that hotspot existed, it would require less energy escaping from the top of the atmosphere..NOAA/NASA satellites show us that the amount of energy escaping the top of the atmosphere is increasing and has been for a good long time.

So you (denier website) picked a modeled graph from one of the IPCC Reports (year not mentioned) and compared that to actual observed graph....for what reason?


So, if the weather person says that it's going to 85 tomorrow and it only turns out to be 81 your going to use that to deny meteorology?

 

[SSDD]

Reality Check Time

Has any denier posted one scientific organization conclusion that confirms their position that AGW is NOT happening due to man-made actives.

Yeah, I'd also like the see the scientific organization that's published a paper proving how the greenhouse effect isn't even possible.

Scientific organizations tend not to publish scientific papers...papers are published by scientists who tend to belong to scientific organizations...and if you would like to see some papers on alternatives to the greenhouse hypothesis...papers which, by the way, accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere, while the greenhouse hypothesis can only predict the temperature here, and only then if you apply an entirely ad hoc (made up) fudge factor, I will be glad to provide you with some. Although I am pretty sure that you won't bother to read them, and even if you did, you will reject the information they provide because of your political leanings...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Clip: This study examines the concept of ‘greenhouse gases’ and various definitions of the phenomenon known as the ‘Atmospheric Radiative Greenhouse Effect’. The six most quoted descriptions are as follows: (a) radiation trapped between the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere; (b) the insulating blanket of the atmosphere that keeps the Earth warm; (c) back radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface; (d) Infra Red absorbing gases that hinder radiative cooling and keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be – known as ‘otherwise radiation’; (e) differences between actual surface temperatures of the Earth (as also observed on Venus) and those based on calculations; (f) any gas that absorbs infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface towards free space. It is shown that none of the above descriptions can withstand the rigours of scientific scrutiny when the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics are applied to them.

New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model

Clip: A recent study has revealed that the Earth’s natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 K or about 2.7 times stronger than assumed for the past 40 years. A thermal enhancement of such a magnitude cannot be explained with the observed amount of outgoing infrared long-wave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere (i.e. ≈ 158 W m-2), thus requiring a re-examination of the underlying Greenhouse theory. We present here a new investigation into the physical nature of the atmospheric thermal effect using a novel empirical approach toward predicting the Global Mean Annual near-surface equilibrium Temperature (GMAT) of rocky planets with diverse atmospheres. Our method utilizes Dimensional Analysis (DA) applied to a vetted set of observed data from six celestial bodies representing a broad range of physical environments in our Solar System, i.e. Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars, Titan (a moon of Saturn), and Triton (a moon of Neptune). Twelve relationships (models) suggested by DA are explored via non-linear regression analyses that involve dimensionless products comprised of solar irradiance, greenhouse-gas partial pressure/density and total atmospheric pressure/density as forcing variables, and two temperature ratios as dependent variables. One non-linear regression model is found to statistically outperform the rest by a wide margin. Our analysis revealed that GMATs of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure. The hereto discovered interplanetary pressure-temperature relationship is shown to be statistically robust while describing a smooth physical continuum without climatic tipping points. This continuum fully explains the recently discovered 90 K thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that has important theoretical implications. A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition. Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. Our empirical model has also fundamental implications for the role of oceans, water vapour, and planetary albedo in global climate. Since produced by a rigorous attempt to describe planetary temperatures in the context of a cosmic continuum using an objective analysis of vetted observations from across the Solar System, these findings call for a paradigm shift in our understanding of the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ as a fundamental property of climate.


The Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory and a Proposal for a Hopeful Alternative

Clip: In view of the global acceptance and the political relevance of the climate greenhouse theory–or rather philosophy- it appeared necessary to deliver a synoptic presentation enabling a detailed exemplary refutation. It focuses the foundations of the theory assuming that a theory cannot be correct when its foundations are not correct. Thus, above all, a critical historical review is made. As a spin-off of this study, the Lambert-Beer law is questioned suggesting an alternative approach. Moreover, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is relativized revealing the different characters of the two temperature terms. But in particular, the author’s recently published own work is quoted revealing novelmeasurement methods and yielding several crucial arguments, while finally an empiric proof is presented.

The cardinal error in the usual greenhouse theory consists in the assumption that photometric or spectroscopic IR-measurements allow conclusions about the thermal behaviour of gases, i.e., of the atmosphere. They trace back to John Tyndall who developed such a photometric method already in the 19th century. However, direct thermal measurement methods have never been applied so far. Apart from this, at least twenty crucial errors are revealed which suggest abandoning the theory as a whole.

In spite of its obvious deficiencies, this theory has so far been an obstacle to take promising precautions formitigating the climate change. They would consist in a general brightening of the Earth surface, and in additional measures being related to this. However, the novel effects which were found by the author, particularly the absorptionof incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influencedby human acts. But their discovery may contribute to a better understanding of the atmospheric processes.

Holmes, 2017

Clip:
Presented here is a simple and reliable method of accurately calculating the average near surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies which possess a surface atmospheric pressure of over 10kPa [a thick atmosphere, 0.1 bar or more]. This method requires a gas constant and the knowledge of only three gas parameters: [1] the average near-surface atmospheric pressure, [2] the average near surface atmospheric density and [3] the average mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere. The formula used is the molar version of the ideal gas law.
It is here demonstrated that the information contained in just these three gas parameters alone is an extremely accurate predictor of atmospheric temperatures on planets with atmospheres >10kPa. This indicates that all information on the effective plus the residual near-surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies with thick atmospheres, is automatically ‘baked-in’ to the three mentioned gas parameters.

This formula proves itself here to be not only more accurate than any other method heretofore used, but is far simpler to calculate. It requires no input from parameters previously thought to be essential; solar insolation, albedo, greenhouse gas content, ocean circulation and cloud cover among many others.

Given this, it is shown that no one gas has an anomalous effect on atmospheric temperatures that is significantly more than any other gas.

In short, there can be no 33°C ‘greenhouse effect’ on Earth, or any significant ‘greenhouse effect’ on any other planetary body with an atmosphere of >10kPa.


https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/unified_theory_of_climate.pdf

Clip:
In other words, our results suggest that the GH effect is a thermodynamic phenomenon, not a radiative one as presently assumed. This finding leads to a new and very different paradigm of climate controls. Results from our research are combined with those from other studies to propose a Unified Theory of Climate, which explains a number of phenomena that the current theory fails to explain. Implications of the new paradigm for predicting future climate trends are briefly discussed.

So the answer to the question is still no.

What is it like to come to a thread and have nothing to contribute other than a weak logical fallacy? If you want to talk about your faith, there is a religion room on this board isn't there?

 

[SSDD]

Reality Check Time

Has any denier posted one scientific organization conclusion that confirms their position that AGW is NOT happening due to man-made actives.

Right back to an appeal to authority in the face of massive empirical evidence to the contrary... Do you fools ever get tired of running in circles?

So NO scientific organization is willing to stand behind "massive empirical evidence" and declare global warming a hoax.

What? They don't risk their creditably for you deniers.

Easy....funding and political power. Like all politicians, their position is rarely about reality.

 

[SSDD]

Reality Check Time

Has any denier posted one scientific organization conclusion that confirms their position that AGW is NOT happening due to man-made actives.

repeating a logical fallacy is not going to get you any closer to supporting the greenhouse effect.

So, no scientific organization is willing to risk their credibility for deniers?

Huh....

Again...if faith is what you want to talk about, there are more appropriate places than on a thread where actual science is being discussed...Now, if you can provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence from any of those organizations you have so much faith in that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, by all means, lets see it.

Or of you can find a single paper published by any of the scientists in any of those organizations in which the warming that we are supposed to be causing with our CO2 production has been empirically measured, quantified and blamed on greenhouse gasses, by all means, lets see it.

If you want to say that you trust these people because you have so little grasp of the science, that you simply must put your faith in someone, again, there is a religion room for that...it certainly has no bearing on science..

 

[Frannie]

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

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

You have missed the point as 1970 has no relevance. The current warming trend began 20000 years ago

 

[SSDD]

So you (denier website) picked a modeled graph from one of the IPCC Reports (year not mentioned) and compared that to actual observed graph....for what reason?

The models still predict a hot spot which is why alarmist scientists went so far as to claim that there is a hot spot, but it just can't be measured by a million thermometers...it can only be measured by a device that measures wind speed..

The reason is obvious to anyone who has even the most rudimentary understanding of science....which you have demonstrated that you do not. After all, you offered up single graphs and claimed that they showed no adjustments...as if you could detect adjustments without something to compare them to.

compare - v - to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similaritie sand differences

By showing the hot spot predicted by climate models, and by showing the absence of a hot spot as verified by observation of a million + radiosondes equipped with state of the art thermometers, and the satellite observation record, we are able to see the abject failure of the climate models...we are able to see that they experienced a major predictive failure...and then by look ing at the satellite measurements of energy escaping from the top of the troposphere, we can see that there can be no hot spot as predicted by climate science because the amount of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere is increasing...yet another prediction of climate science that has failed.

I am sure that you would be satisfied, and convinced by the single graph produced by models predicting an upper tropospheric hot spot....you have faith after all, and simply can't imagine that the people whom you put your faith in would let you down.

So, if the weather person says that it's going to 85 tomorrow and it only turns out to be 81 your going to use that to deny meteorology?

Why is it not surprising that you don't know the difference between weather and climate...and even meteorologists freely admit that the system is far to chaotic for any sort of accurate prediction beyond a few hours...the purpose of 24 hour weather reports is to be able to constantly change the predictions, and even then, they are often wrong....meteorology makes no bones about the fact that their models simply aren't accurate more than a few hours out...climate science, on the other hand, is working within the same system as meteorologists, and claim that they can predict what is going to happen in 100 years...and you believe them...how gullible are you?

 

[SSDD]

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

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

You have missed the point as 1970 has no relevance. The current warming trend began 20000 years ago

Of course anyone who has looked at the data knows that...The people who the thread was directed at don't...they apparently believe that global warming started in 1970 and that we are responsible...and I doubt that you could convince them otherwise...I simply asked for the physical data that supports their belief...

In either event, they are going to believe what they believe primarily because they are so uneducated, that they can't begin to examine the data and instead simply place their faith in someone who is on their side politically.

This really isn't for them...it is for the fence sitters who actually can look at information and form an informed opinion...they see the data...and they see the abject idiocy of those who believe in AGW, and the weakness of the "data" they present...it is good to be able to see how strong one side of an argument is and compare it to how weak the other is.