To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[jc456]

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?

are you saying steel doesn't absorb heat? holy fkn crap. Dude, how do you supposed steel is formed? oh my word, now that is beyond stupid. Didn't think that was at all possible and there you step out. wow.

 

[Old Rocks]

The subject was absortion of heat from sunlight that does not penetrate deeply into the material.

 

[jc456]

i know, and you made it seem like sun doesn't penetrate steel. I'm just saying.

 

[mamooth]

you're irrelevant squidward.. Totally useless to the cause and the discussion.

Stings when I rip apart your pseudoscience, eh?

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..

The acceleration in warming sent that theory of yours into the trash bin for good, being that it's exactly the opposite of what your theory predicts.

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.

You shouldn't have kept so loudly declaring how the oceans can't affect temperatures by storing and releasing heat. You could have used that fact to explain the constant failure of your cult's cooling prophecies, but now even that option is out, and you're left with nothing.

 

[flacaltenn]

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?

Hit and run... If it's polished steel -- the heat is not far IR global warming..

you're irrelevant squidward.. Totally useless to the cause and the discussion.

Stings when I rip apart your pseudoscience, eh?

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..

The acceleration in warming sent that theory of yours into the trash bin for good, being that it's exactly the opposite of what your theory predicts.

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.

You shouldn't have kept so loudly declaring how the oceans can't affect temperatures by storing and releasing heat. You could have used that fact to explain the constant failure of your cult's cooling prophecies, but now even that option is out, and you're left with nothing.

You have no idea what I've said. Your ass gets kicked so bad --- I'm surprised you know how to find your way back here everyday..

Never said ANYTHING even remotedly as stupud as "the ocean don't store and release heat".. If that's your level of participation here --- please bite me and bug off..

I'm nNOT the one on the defensive here. Also not the paranoid one of us two..

 

[Wuwei]

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.

Roasting? Don't you mean freezing?

do you have actual statistics for those numbers?

Evasive answers.

The figures come from NASA and many other reputable scientific institutions.
The errors are much smaller than those I included below.

1. The earth is absorbing around 163+/-3 W/sq meter of short wave energy from the sun.
2. The earth is radiating thermal IR energy at 391+/- 10 W/sq meter
​

Both numbers have been known long before satellites. They come from well known simple measurements and computations well before AGW became an issue. They are believed by all scientists - skeptics or warmers. If you want to argue global warming you have got to know these things.

​

 

[jc456]

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.

do you have actual statistics for those numbers?

Evasive answers.

The figures come from NASA and many other reputable scientific institutions.
The errors are much smaller than those I included below.

1. The earth is absorbing around 163+/-3 W/sq meter of short wave energy from the sun.
2. The earth is radiating thermal IR energy at 391+/- 10 W/sq meter
​

Both numbers have been known long before satellites. They come from well known simple measurements and computations well before AGW became an issue. They are believed by all scientists - skeptics or warmers. If you want to argue global warming you have got to know these things.

​

now that's special. So you have no data to support the claim. observed data that is.

 

[Wuwei]

now that's special. So you have no data to support the claim. observed data that is.

Evasive answer. I just gave you the data!

 

[jc456]

now that's special. So you have no data to support the claim. observed data that is.

Evasive answer. I just gave you the data!

sorry, but your link never made it to the page. Try again.

 

[mamooth]

You have no idea what I've said. Your ass gets kicked so bad --- I'm surprised you know how to find your way back here everyday..

No, the problem seems to be that you have no idea what you've said. Maybe you meant something sensible, but what you wrote ... wasn't.

Never said ANYTHING even remotedly as stupud as "the ocean don't store and release heat".. If that's your level of participation here --- please bite me and bug off..

This bit of babble is yours.

1) None of that SUPPORTS the GW assertion that the Oceans are eating 90% of global warming. They MAY BE eating 90% of the direct insolation -- but that's another matter. And the fact that skeptics are pointing out there is no valid mechanism to magically pick-up and deposit down-dwelling IR (or actually -- reduced losses from skin) is NOT an attempt to refute the energy balance -- but to refute the assertion that the oceans APPETITE for IR has somehow increased to account for "the Pause or Hiatus" or the other braindead propaganda being promulgated as "climate science"...

I can see why you're running from it now. If I had posted something that senseless, I'd also disavow it after sobering up.

I'm NOT the one on the defensive here. Also not the paranoid one of us two..

Do let us know when you make up your mind. Can heat going in and out of the oceans affect short term climate or not?

 

[Wuwei]

now that's special. So you have no data to support the claim. observed data that is.

Evasive answer. I just gave you the data!

sorry, but your link never made it to the page. Try again.

I already gave it to you. Here it is again.

From NASA ... Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget : Feature Articles
Of the 340 watts per square meter of solar energy that falls on the Earth, 29% is reflected back into space,.... About 23% of incoming energy is absorbed in the atmosphere.... The remaining 48% is absorbed at the surface.
The energy hitting the earth surface is 340 W/sq meter times 48% = 163 W/sq meter.

As far as the earth surface emissions I will use the figure of a famous AGW denier, Alan Watts"
The Important Difference between Climatology and Climate Science
"surface T [temperature] emissions are about 391 W/m^2 average".

If you want to dig deeper, the average temperature of the earth is 15 C. The radiation from a body at that temperature is easily calculated from the Stefan Boltzman law. Here is a simple SB calculator.
Wolfram|Alpha: Computational Knowledge Engine

Look halfway down at the radiant exitance. It's 390.9 watts per sq meter, just like Watts and I said.

So the earth is receiving 391 W and emitting 390.9 W. There is an easy answer for this discrepancy. Can you figure it out? If you guys are into AGW you really got to know these things.

 

[Crick]

Rounding?

; - )

 

[Wuwei]

Rounding?

; - )

Shhh. Don't give them bad hints. They may take you seriously.

 

[jc456]

now that's special. So you have no data to support the claim. observed data that is.

Evasive answer. I just gave you the data!

sorry, but your link never made it to the page. Try again.

I already gave it to you. Here it is again.

From NASA ... Climate and Earth’s Energy Budget : Feature Articles
Of the 340 watts per square meter of solar energy that falls on the Earth, 29% is reflected back into space,.... About 23% of incoming energy is absorbed in the atmosphere.... The remaining 48% is absorbed at the surface.
The energy hitting the earth surface is 340 W/sq meter times 48% = 163 W/sq meter.

As far as the earth surface emissions I will use the figure of a famous AGW denier, Alan Watts"
The Important Difference between Climatology and Climate Science
"surface T [temperature] emissions are about 391 W/m^2 average".

If you want to dig deeper, the average temperature of the earth is 15 C. The radiation from a body at that temperature is easily calculated from the Stefan Boltzman law. Here is a simple SB calculator.
Wolfram|Alpha: Computational Knowledge Engine

Look halfway down at the radiant exitance. It's 390.9 watts per sq meter, just like Watts and I said.

So the earth is receiving 391 W and emitting 390.9 W. There is an easy answer for this discrepancy. Can you figure it out? If you guys are into AGW you really got to know these things.

From your source, this doesn't happen. And I've I continuously stated, you have no evidence to show it does. This is the argument.

"Because greenhouse gas molecules radiate heat in all directions, some of it spreads downward and ultimately comes back into contact with the Earth’s surface, where it is absorbed. The temperature of the surface becomes warmer than it would be if it were heated only by direct solar heating. This supplemental heating of the Earth’s surface by the atmosphere is the natural greenhouse effect."

Just show the experiment that validates that statement. It is what I have been asking for as well as warming increase due to adding 120 PPM of CO2 to the 280 that was in the atmosphere pre industrial age. Post it up. Let's see the magic.

 

[Wuwei]

"Because greenhouse gas molecules radiate heat in all directions, some of it spreads downward and ultimately comes back into contact with the Earth’s surface, where it is absorbed. The temperature of the surface becomes warmer than it would be if it were heated only by direct solar heating. This supplemental heating of the Earth’s surface by the atmosphere is the natural greenhouse effect."

Yeaaa! you got it right!

From your source, this doesn't happen. And I've I continuously stated, you have no evidence to show it does.

Exactly what doesn't happen? Measurements (direct evidence) that the sun don't shine 163 W? Or is it that the measurements (direct evidence) by Stefan and Boltzmann is a damn lie perpetrated by thousands, maybe millions of scientists for over 150 years? Their direct experimental evidence shows that the earth, or anything else at 15 deg C emits 391 W.

Which of these measurements with direct experimental evidence do you think doesn't happen?

 

[jc456]

"Because greenhouse gas molecules radiate heat in all directions, some of it spreads downward and ultimately comes back into contact with the Earth’s surface, where it is absorbed. The temperature of the surface becomes warmer than it would be if it were heated only by direct solar heating. This supplemental heating of the Earth’s surface by the atmosphere is the natural greenhouse effect."

Yeaaa! you got it right!

From your source, this doesn't happen. And I've I continuously stated, you have no evidence to show it does.

Exactly what doesn't happen? Measurements (direct evidence) that the sun don't shine 163 W? Or is it that the measurements (direct evidence) by Stefan and Boltzmann is a damn lie perpetrated by thousands, maybe millions of scientists for over 150 years? Their direct experimental evidence shows that the earth, or anything else at 15 deg C emits 391 W.

Which of these measurements with direct experimental evidence do you think doesn't happen?

dude, I highlighted it, that the supposed back radiation is absorbed. No evidence of it at all. And why I argue my point. I know I got it right. I understand. I also don't believe in the back radiation theory. Sorry, no evidence to support it. I welcome any you have.

BTW, if an embalance is bad and you say that there is one today, why aren't we seeing the doom and gloom now? I really can't figure you fools out.

 

[Wuwei]

I also don't believe in the back radiation theory.

All scientists believe back radiation is happening. Even the skeptics Spencer and Watts believe it. If you don't, how do you explain the mismatch in radiation between the earth and sun.

BTW, if an embalance is bad and you say that there is one today, why aren't we seeing the doom and gloom now? I really can't figure you fools out.

There is only an apparent radiation imbalance in the conundrum I presented. If you don't believe that back radiation is the answer, what do you think answers the mismatch? All scientists know there is no huge gloom and doom due to radiation imbalance, mostly because of H2O back radiation.

I have to give you credit for sticking this out. BillBob, westwall, and Frank hightailed it. SSDD hightailed it earlier too.

 

[jc456]

I also don't believe in the back radiation theory.

All scientists believe back radiation is happening. Even the skeptics Spencer and Watts believe it. If you don't, how do you explain the mismatch in radiation between the earth and sun.

BTW, if an embalance is bad and you say that there is one today, why aren't we seeing the doom and gloom now? I really can't figure you fools out.

There is only an apparent radiation imbalance in the conundrum I presented. If you don't believe that back radiation is the answer, what do you think answers the mismatch? All scientists know there is no huge gloom and doom due to radiation imbalance, mostly because of H2O back radiation.

I have to give you credit for sticking this out. BillBob, westwall, and Frank hightailed it. SSDD hightailed it earlier too.

Honestly, I don't trust any numbers today. The science has been watered down so much today, I trust noone. I definitely don't trust NASA. They are untrust worthy. the more I watch how they have manipulated things since they existed, I don't trust them.

Simply put, the sun rays get absorbed and then the longwave IR gets radiated upward. In the arctic and the antarctic, that doesn't happen. So we lose energy right there since only reflected short wave IR is headed back to space.Short wave IR CO2 does not absorb. So, I've asked and Frank has asked where is the warmth in the world going if it is supposed to be warmer? And the ocean didn't eat it. Nope it never was there and why there has been a pause for almost nineteen years now.

Anyone can post up warmest evah numbers, but then the numbers are watered down. So, I'll stick with satellite records.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Roasting? Don't you mean freezing?

do you have actual statistics for those numbers?

Evasive answers.

The figures come from NASA and many other reputable scientific institutions.
The errors are much smaller than those I included below.

1. The earth is absorbing around 163+/-3 W/sq meter of short wave energy from the sun.
2. The earth is radiating thermal IR energy at 391+/- 10 W/sq meter
​

Both numbers have been known long before satellites. They come from well known simple measurements and computations well before AGW became an issue. They are believed by all scientists - skeptics or warmers. If you want to argue global warming you have got to know these things.

​

If we used your numbers, we should be an ice box.. were not. Just a cursory look into them gives thinking persons reason to doubt them. they simply dont add up.

 

[Crick]

I posted this for Crusader Frank, but it will do for you as well jc.

Here's one you might have a little more difficulty with Frank. But it's a real, recently published study on the warming being produced by greenhouse gases. The study is at
P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)

Here is the brief version of the paper's abstract. There is an extended version at the link. The full paper may be read at https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

All emphases below are mine.

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.
This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

The graph below is a direct measurement of that backradiation that some of your fellow deniers here claim doesn't exist or can't be measured. The radiation from water vapor has been filtered out so that the effects of other gases may be seen. We can see carbon dioxide (CO2), two varieties of freon (CFC11 and CFC12), nitric acid (HNO3), nitrous oxide (N2O) ozone (O3), methane (CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO).

As you can see, CO2 makes a large contribution to the total effect.