To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[Billy_Bob]

Here Crick... from one of your own trusted sites..WIKI

HITRAN is the worldwide standard for calculating or simulating atmospheric molecular transmission and radiance from the microwave through ultraviolet region of the spectrum.[citation needed] The current version contains 47 molecular species along with their most significant isotopologues. These data are archived as a multitude of high-resolution line transitions, each containing many spectral parameters required for high-resolution simulations. In addition there are about 50 molecular species collected as cross-section data. These latter include anthropogenic constituents in the atmosphere such as the chlorofluorocarbons.

And that link confirmed that HITRAN is a database. Just what do you think an archive of measured spectral parameters is? Everyone else knows. It's a database. The HITRAN database is then used in models. You know, like the gravitational constant G. It's used in models, but G is a measured constant, not a model itself, just like the HITRAN database entries.

So, is the problem that you have trouble reading basic English, or are you just lying by claiming HITRAN is a model?

And before you double down on "stupid" again, do note that none of the other deniers are jumping on this crazy train of yours. There's a reason for that.

I'm sure every model has a fkn database right? How else would they plot their expectations? Nice FAIL!

Snagletooth cant figure it out... The description, even on wiki, shows it to be a program needing variables and data input (a data base) to operate. Its that basic, fundamental understanding of how it works, that outs it (note I said 'it') as a paid shill for the communist movement.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So what do you believe has caused the rapid rise in warming rate since the middle of the 20th century? When I first came here you said it was from TSI. I haven't seen you mention that idea in quite some time.

First we must get beyond the adjustments, infilling, UHI contamination and homogenization of the rabid left to find that the rise was nothing. Then we can talk about what the facts really are.

Until you come to terms that 95% of what you claim as rise is pure bull shit there will be no discussion on how to combat anything as we do not chase ghosts..

 

[Billy_Bob]

No, it's you who are trying to distract from the simple fact that long wave IR can't do what you are claiming.. Period.

These are facts that are NOT disputed by the scientific community, whether they are warmers or deniers.

1. The earth is absorbing around 163 W/sq meter of short wave energy from the sun.
2. The earth is radiating thermal IR energy at 391 W/sq meter

You guys have several choices:
1. I don't agree with those scientific facts.
2. I don't care what the facts are. I believe my gut.
3. Make a digression or some other distraction.
4. Make a lot of personal insults.
5. Come up with a reasonable answer.

You mechanism is wrong for thermal balance, thus your numbers mean nothing. Until you get the mechanism right the rest is pure useless running in circles, chicken little sort of thing.

So your reply is #1: you disagree with the scientific facts that came from a NASA site.

Again you misrepresent what I said.. I never disputed the facts you presented, I merely stated that they mean jack shit, as they can not quantify the correct mechanism, as to why they do not represent the atmospheric process.

You trying to place words in my mouth is pure fantasy left wing bull shit propagandist to the max.

 

[Crick]

I'd say you were dancing as fast as you can Billy.

 

[Wuwei]

Again you misrepresent what I said.. I never disputed the facts you presented, I merely stated that they mean jack shit, as they can not quantify the correct mechanism, as to why they do not represent the atmospheric process.

You trying to place words in my mouth is pure fantasy left wing bull shit propagandist to the max.

OK. So you don't dispute the facts but you never answered the question:
1. The earth is absorbing around 163 W/sq meter of short wave energy from the sun.
2. The earth is radiating thermal IR energy at 391 W/sq meter.

Those numbers aren't meant to quantify anything else. Now tell me exactly how you explain the discrepancy between incoming SW energy and outgoing LW radiant energy. This is not a trick question. There is a very short easy answer. I'm curious if you understand it.

Insults are not necessary in your explanation.

 

[jc456]

I'd say you were dancing as fast as you can Billy.

Except his dance is science based and not fantasy as is yours. So your position is of paranoia!

 

[jc456]

Again you misrepresent what I said.. I never disputed the facts you presented, I merely stated that they mean jack shit, as they can not quantify the correct mechanism, as to why they do not represent the atmospheric process.

You trying to place words in my mouth is pure fantasy left wing bull shit propagandist to the max.

OK. So you don't dispute the facts but you never answered the question:
1. The earth is absorbing around 163 W/sq meter of short wave energy from the sun.
2. The earth is radiating thermal IR energy at 391 W/sq meter.

Those numbers aren't meant to quantify anything else. Now tell me exactly how you explain the discrepancy between incoming SW energy and outgoing LW radiant energy. This is not a trick question. There is a very short easy answer. I'm curious if you understand it.

Insults are not necessary in your explanation.

Your answer was already posted be westwall. Did you read it or avoid it?

What is your reason?

 

[Wuwei]

Your answer was already posted be westwall. Did you read it or avoid it?

Westwall posted some irrelevant numbers out of the blue and never came back. Methinks westwall is avoiding the question. If you think differently, please point out his answer.

What is your reason?

It is a question for you too. I'm curious if you understand the radiant energy flow.

 

[flacaltenn]

So what do you believe has caused the rapid rise in warming rate since the middle of the 20th century? When I first came here you said it was from TSI. I haven't seen you mention that idea in quite some time.

I've NEVER tried to account for every 1/100th of degree rise that you are constantly panicking about.
My position has ALWAYS been

1a) That 1/2 or more of warming we've seen is MORE likely due to other causes than CO2 -- OR is natural variation.
1b) That the EMPIRICAL DATA supports CO2 as GH contributor ONLY to the extent of the basic physics estimates of about 1degC/doubling. No Magic Multipliers on "Climate Sensitivity", no accelerations, No boiling oceans, no IMMINENT Global crisis...

2) The fantastical parts of GW Theory calling for runaway devastation to the Climate and carnage is pure bunk.

3) Climate science is relatively immature and has wasted it;'s time on this CO2 issue when it should have been learning how the Earth distributes, stores, and sheds heat and how the carbon cycles and water
cycles can be better monitored for changes.

4) That there exists a huge socio-political circus around what SHOULD be a CONTINUING scientific debate. That circus TAINTS the entire cult of Climate Science. And the massive propaganda campaign has more PERVERTED any real science getting done -- than advanced it.

As for solar science -- we've only got about 30 years of ACCURATE RELIABLE measurements to go on. There's been WAAAAY too much deceptive advertising on proxy studies of ALL types. Solar is one of those. But if you're looking at the FRAGILITY of our climate system --- I'd start with the sun.. Because the entire GHouse effect is FINELY tuned to some very NARROW lines of frequency (color) emission from that uncontrolled nuclear furnace in the sky,. And it's COLOR and intensity WILL AND HAVE changed over time. When you're looking for 1% differences in W/m2 -- you have to look HARDER than the TrenBerth diagram and CO2 back rad..

 

[mamooth]

Solar energy varies by about 6% each year, as the earth goes from the nearest to farthest point in its elliptical orbit. And that changes climate ... not at all.

Yet, according to the flac theory, much tinier changes in solar energy received are what is driving massive climate changes.

Now, most people can correctly point out that the oceans store heat, which makes the earth's climate like a low-pass filter, so that the regular yearly cyclic variation is averaged out. But flac can't, because he's declared it's impossible for the oceans to store heat.

So, since flac is unable to explain why the earth acts like a low-pass filter, he's invoking a magical theory about the color of sunlight. There's no evidence to back up that strange claim, but that's not necessary for flac's "Have you conclusively proven it's not the case? No? Then it must be true!" brand of science.

 

[mamooth]

Where did I say that? Hmm? The point is the oceans are the heat engines of the planet. That is a fact. Go to the desert and you'll see what I mean. Yes, the sun warms the rocks up real good. And then at night they get real cold real fast. The desert at night is not a very nice place to be. Did you have some real world experience instead of computer derived fiction for your world view you would KNOW that.

You said longwave IR can't warm the oceans because it doesn't penetrate deeply.

You say sunlight can warm a rock, even though it doesn't penetrate deeply.

Can you explain to us why penetration distance matters for one case, but not for the other?

 

[westwall]

Where did I say that? Hmm? The point is the oceans are the heat engines of the planet. That is a fact. Go to the desert and you'll see what I mean. Yes, the sun warms the rocks up real good. And then at night they get real cold real fast. The desert at night is not a very nice place to be. Did you have some real world experience instead of computer derived fiction for your world view you would KNOW that.

You said longwave IR can't warm the oceans because it doesn't penetrate deeply.

You say sunlight can warm a rock, even though it doesn't penetrate deeply.

Can you explain to us why penetration distance matters for one case, but not for the other?

Thermal............. Think about it for a skosh.

 

[Wuwei]

Hey, BillyBob, westwall, JC

You never answered the question, how can the earth maintain equilibrium when,

1. The earth is absorbing around 163W/sq meter of short wave energy from the sun.
2. The earth is radiating thermal IR energy at 391W/sq meter​

It's radiating much more than than it's absorbing. How can that happen?

 

[flacaltenn]

Solar energy varies by about 6% each year, as the earth goes from the nearest to farthest point in its elliptical orbit. And that changes climate ... not at all.

Yet, according to the flac theory, much tinier changes in solar energy received are what is driving massive climate changes.

Now, most people can correctly point out that the oceans store heat, which makes the earth's climate like a low-pass filter, so that the regular yearly cyclic variation is averaged out. But flac can't, because he's declared it's impossible for the oceans to store heat.

So, since flac is unable to explain why the earth acts like a low-pass filter, he's invoking a magical theory about the color of sunlight. There's no evidence to back up that strange claim, but that's not necessary for flac's "Have you conclusively proven it's not the case? No? Then it must be true!" brand of science.

you're irrelevant squidward.. Totally useless to the cause and the discussion. There are CONSTANT LONG TERM solar variations. NOT just yearly or 12 year solar cycles. There was a ramp up after the Maunder Minimum that went out 160 or 200 years.. Flattened out about the 1970s. ABOUT to probably go way negative AGAIN..

To deny that -- puts you in the robes of your church, and reciting dogma.. Since they IGNORE and redefine the Total Solar Irradiance to hide that fact in their holy books. But it's undeniable science.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Solar energy varies by about 6% each year, as the earth goes from the nearest to farthest point in its elliptical orbit. And that changes climate ... not at all.

Yet, according to the flac theory, much tinier changes in solar energy received are what is driving massive climate changes.

Now, most people can correctly point out that the oceans store heat, which makes the earth's climate like a low-pass filter, so that the regular yearly cyclic variation is averaged out. But flac can't, because he's declared it's impossible for the oceans to store heat.

So, since flac is unable to explain why the earth acts like a low-pass filter, he's invoking a magical theory about the color of sunlight. There's no evidence to back up that strange claim, but that's not necessary for flac's "Have you conclusively proven it's not the case? No? Then it must be true!" brand of science.

The AGW Cult knows that the Sun has no effect on Global Warming

 

[flacaltenn]

I think we're discovering where "the paranoids" live... This thread MIGHT be right on topic..,

 

[westwall]

Hey, BillyBob, westwall, JC

You never answered the question, how can the earth maintain equilibrium when,

1. The earth is absorbing around 163W/sq meter of short wave energy from the sun.
2. The earth is radiating thermal IR energy at 391W/sq meter​

It's radiating much more than than it's absorbing. How can that happen?

The figures you present are not known to be true at all. They are estimates based on incomplete data sets. If they were factual, I can guarantee you the planet would be roasting by now. The fact that it isn't would give a thinking person pause.

 

[jc456]

Hey, BillyBob, westwall, JC

You never answered the question, how can the earth maintain equilibrium when,

1. The earth is absorbing around 163W/sq meter of short wave energy from the sun.
2. The earth is radiating thermal IR energy at 391W/sq meter​

It's radiating much more than than it's absorbing. How can that happen?

do you have actual statistics for those numbers?

 

[Old Rocks]

Long Wave IR, the supposed mechanism of global warming can't penetrate a single millimeter into the oceans. Thus, all the rest of what you are posting is simply worthless.

According to Westwall here, sunlight can't warm a rock. After all, the sunlight can't even penetrate a single millimeter into the rock, therefore it is impossible for sunlight to warm a rock.

My point would be that Westwall's physics is hilariously stupid.

Ever touch a slab of steel that has been sitting in the sun on a 100 degree day? How many mm does the sun penetrate the steel? And where is that cooling you have been predicting all these years, Mr. Westwall?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Long Wave IR, the supposed mechanism of global warming can't penetrate a single millimeter into the oceans. Thus, all the rest of what you are posting is simply worthless.

According to Westwall here, sunlight can't warm a rock. After all, the sunlight can't even penetrate a single millimeter into the rock, therefore it is impossible for sunlight to warm a rock.

My point would be that Westwall's physics is hilariously stupid.

Ever touch a slab of steel that has been sitting in the sun on a 100 degree day? How many mm does the sun penetrate the steel? And where is that cooling you have been predicting all these years, Mr. Westwall?

You should know that the AGW Cult is on record saying that 93% of the warming is absorbed by the oceans and warms them down to 700 meters.

Idiotic, right?