To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[Billy_Bob]

Tell me moron, if matter receives the wave length what does the molecule emit? What other items NOT LISTED emit within the same range?

You see morons like you and crick dont understand the spectral emissions and what they can and can not cause.

Silly old crock... it went right over your dam head

BillyBob, you can't explain your point if it is mostly empty bluster. If you don't think all the GHGs were listed, just say what you think they are. You are referring to "the wave length" and "the molecule". The word "the" is a definite article and refers to something specific. Please say what specific wave length and molecule you are referring to.

"Retarded" is not used in radiation physics. If you are inventing new terms define them. Rather than simply calling someone a "moron" about spectral emissions, just state what you think spectral emissions "can and can not cause". When you type vague sentences with mostly bluster, people will assume you don't know what you are talking about.

Matter (molecules) emit what they receive at roughly the same wave length. OTHER items emit at this same wavelength which are NOT GHG's. You cant define what the GHG's actually do until you define what the other sources of the wave length are and how much they emit.

This is the reason that all current CO2 forcing estimates are wrong. In the past they have over and over again reduced the "forcing" effect of CO2. Now they are seeing the net forcing as negative (in other words even the base line warming shown in the lab is to high)

Currently the we are seeing only about 0.6 deg C rise per doubling...

You are on the right course here. But the 1st doubling since the Industrial Age isn't even done yet. Probably WILL be just over 1degC.. Which BTW -- as you say -- the empirical accurate modern measurements of temp confirm.

Even if it EXCEEDED that amount because of additive natural variations over that time frame ---- the basic physics/chemical calculations of 1degC/doubling that we started with ---- are not the CRISIS that has been declared by the GW circus..

But we pretty much know the spectral (frequency) emission/absorption properties of all the atmos constituents. What we DON'T KNOW accurately is the spectral variance of that big nuclear furnace in the sky. Can only ACCURATELY see that from space. And we've only been measuring that for about 30 years. Those matter bands of frequencies are narrowly tuned in a LOT of cases and a shift in the solar frequency distribution could easily cause a W/m2 or two of difference thru the atmos..

So, we are nowhere near doubling, yet we have already hit 0.9 degrees above the pre-industrial average. How do you square that with only 1 degree for a doubling?

2015 is warmest year on record, NOAA and NASA say - CNN.com

While it wasn't necessarily a surprise that 2015 finished in first place, its margin of victory was startling -- it lapped the field, with the average temperature across the entire planet 1.62˚F (0.90˚C) above the 20th century average, more than 20% higher than the previous highest departure from average.

Now even El Niño is man made... How disingenuous can you be? Lying about this is not going to help you or your cause..

 

[Billy_Bob]

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/full/ngeo1580.html

An update on Earth's energy balance in light of the latest global observations

• Graeme L. Stephens,
• Juilin Li,
• Martin Wild,
• Carol Anne Clayson,
• Norman Loeb,
• Seiji Kato,
• Tristan L'Ecuyer,
• Paul W. Stackhouse Jr,
• Matthew Lebsock
• & Timothy Andrews

• Affiliations
• Corresponding author

Nature Geoscience

5,

691–696

(2012)

doi:10.1038/ngeo1580
Received

08 November 2011
Accepted

13 August 2012
Published online

23 September 2012
Citation

• Reprints

• Rights & permissions

• Article metrics

Abstract

• Abstract•
• References•
• Author information•
• Supplementary information

Climate change is governed by changes to the global energy balance. At the top of the atmosphere, this balance is monitored globally by satellite sensors that provide measurements of energy flowing to and from Earth. By contrast, observations at the surface are limited mostly to land areas. As a result, the global balance of energy fluxes within the atmosphere or at Earth's surface cannot be derived directly from measured fluxes, and is therefore uncertain. This lack of precise knowledge of surface energy fluxes profoundly affects our ability to understand how Earth's climate responds to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. In light of compilations of up-to-date surface and satellite data, the surface energy balance needs to be revised. Specifically, the longwave radiation received at the surface is estimated to be significantly larger, by between 10 and 17 Wm−2, than earlier model-based estimates. Moreover, the latest satellite observations of global precipitation indicate that more precipitation is generated than previously thought. This additional precipitation is sustained by more energy leaving the surface by evaporation — that is, in the form of latent heat flux — and thereby offsets much of the increase in longwave flux to the surface.

Yes, we have much yet to learn. However, many here would shut down any research on the subject, simply because they know the results would show that we are increasing the heat on this planet.

You guys are the retards that think the science is settled..

 

[Wuwei]

You can not have A negative imbalance and not be cooling.

Right.

So what have they missed?

No, the question is what you missed.

And these are supposed to be professionals... so they just make up things? Where is their extra energy coming from?

The professionals did not miss anything. Technically it is a sort of virtual extra energy. All scientists believe the GHG's backscatter prevents that large earth radiation from being large. In short you have to believe in back radiation in order to understand the apparent energy imbalance. You have previously stated that you don't believe in back radiation, if you still disbelieve, you will have to be the one to "just make up things".

 

[flacaltenn]

Tell me moron, if matter receives the wave length what does the molecule emit? What other items NOT LISTED emit within the same range?

You see morons like you and crick dont understand the spectral emissions and what they can and can not cause.

Silly old crock... it went right over your dam head

BillyBob, you can't explain your point if it is mostly empty bluster. If you don't think all the GHGs were listed, just say what you think they are. You are referring to "the wave length" and "the molecule". The word "the" is a definite article and refers to something specific. Please say what specific wave length and molecule you are referring to.

"Retarded" is not used in radiation physics. If you are inventing new terms define them. Rather than simply calling someone a "moron" about spectral emissions, just state what you think spectral emissions "can and can not cause". When you type vague sentences with mostly bluster, people will assume you don't know what you are talking about.

Matter (molecules) emit what they receive at roughly the same wave length. OTHER items emit at this same wavelength which are NOT GHG's. You cant define what the GHG's actually do until you define what the other sources of the wave length are and how much they emit.

This is the reason that all current CO2 forcing estimates are wrong. In the past they have over and over again reduced the "forcing" effect of CO2. Now they are seeing the net forcing as negative (in other words even the base line warming shown in the lab is to high)

Currently the we are seeing only about 0.6 deg C rise per doubling...

You are on the right course here. But the 1st doubling since the Industrial Age isn't even done yet. Probably WILL be just over 1degC.. Which BTW -- as you say -- the empirical accurate modern measurements of temp confirm.

Even if it EXCEEDED that amount because of additive natural variations over that time frame ---- the basic physics/chemical calculations of 1degC/doubling that we started with ---- are not the CRISIS that has been declared by the GW circus..

But we pretty much know the spectral (frequency) emission/absorption properties of all the atmos constituents. What we DON'T KNOW accurately is the spectral variance of that big nuclear furnace in the sky. Can only ACCURATELY see that from space. And we've only been measuring that for about 30 years. Those matter bands of frequencies are narrowly tuned in a LOT of cases and a shift in the solar frequency distribution could easily cause a W/m2 or two of difference thru the atmos..

So, we are nowhere near doubling, yet we have already hit 0.9 degrees above the pre-industrial average. How do you square that with only 1 degree for a doubling?

2015 is warmest year on record, NOAA and NASA say - CNN.com

While it wasn't necessarily a surprise that 2015 finished in first place, its margin of victory was startling -- it lapped the field, with the average temperature across the entire planet 1.62˚F (0.90˚C) above the 20th century average, more than 20% higher than the previous highest departure from average.

Simple -- the observed variance is not ALL from CO2 doubling..

 

[Billy_Bob]

You can not have A negative imbalance and not be cooling.

Right.

So what have they missed?

No, the question is what you missed.

And these are supposed to be professionals... so they just make up things? Where is their extra energy coming from?

The professionals did not miss anything. Technically it is a sort of virtual extra energy. All scientists believe the GHG's backscatter prevents that large earth radiation from being large. In short you have to believe in back radiation in order to understand the apparent energy imbalance. You have previously stated that you don't believe in back radiation, if you still disbelieve, you will have to be the one to "just make up things".

All matter radiates IR in all directions.. I have never stated that it does not. The calculations which are being used to identify man's contribution are what is in question. We cant even quantify the amount or source of it and the downward spiral of "forcing" numbers show that we do not.

There are also other factors which emit IR as lower wave lengths after cooling of the molecule occurs (emission wave length is dependent on the temperature of the molecule).

Take water vapor for instance, the biggest GHG on the planet, emits in 6 different wave length bands. Part of the spectral imbalance is due to cooling and a differing wave length being created. This is where they miss the boat so to speak.

 

[Crick]

Evans et al 2006 quantifies backradiation by direct measurement and identifies its sources

 

[Wuwei]

All matter radiates IR in all directions.. I have never stated that it does not. The calculations which are being used to identify man's contribution are what is in question. We cant even quantify the amount or source of it and the downward spiral of "forcing" numbers show that we do not.

Yes, IR in all directions. You are one step ahead of SSDD and others who don't believe that. As far as quantification, Crick in his previous post has a better handle on that than I do.

There are also other factors which emit IR as lower wave lengths after cooling of the molecule occurs (emission wave length is dependent on the temperature of the molecule).

Take water vapor for instance, the biggest GHG on the planet, emits in 6 different wave length bands. Part of the spectral imbalance is due to cooling and a differing wave length being created. This is where they miss the boat so to speak.

Some of what you say is well known, but you have to be more clear on what you think misses the boat.

 

[mamooth]

What did your heroes at NOAA assert that you posted a couple pages back??

That the oceans started absorbing more net heat recently. Why do you think that's supposed to contradict anything I said?

You're a waste of time -- actually...

Against all hope, I'll keep trying to get you to talk about all the science that you keep dodging.

Your theory relies on magic. Heat goes into the oceans, and then hides magically for decades or centuries. Science takes a dim view of such "and then a miracle happens" theories. Science also notes the rate of sea level rise contradicts your theory, being sea level rise is coupled closely to heat storage, and the acceleration is sea level rise is recent, and correlates not at all with solar changes.

You then invoke different magic with your reasoning that it's about the spectrum. Alas, real science also takes a dim view of "If you can't absolutely prove it's not my magic, my magic must be right!" arguments. And it also takes a dim view towards those who throw a lot of crap at the wall in the hopes something sticks.

Climate science has no such problems, no need to invoke any magic. The energy balance over time matches the heat storage well. You claim otherwise, but your graph reading skills are subpar.

Now, let's review your most fundamental science failure.

- but to refute the assertion that the oceans APPETITE for IR has somehow increased to account for "the Pause or Hiatus"

The scientists do not claim or imply such a crazy thing. If you disagree, please link to somebody saying that. You won't be able to, because it's a strawman you invented. Based on your failure to understand the basics, you misrepresented what scientists actually said.

Being that I live to serve, I'll help you out with how the science actually works.

The oceans absorb almost all the IR that falls on them, and most of the sunlight. That never changes, and aside from you, nobody ever said it did.

That incoming energy heats the upper oceans, then the oceans heat the atmosphere. That also never changes.

The backradiation slowly changes the forcing function, increasing slightly over time, due to greenhouse gases.

However, that's just the input. Output also determines how much heat is stored or lost by the ocean. If it's a La Nina year, cooler waters are at the surface, less heat is transferred to the atmosphere, so more heat stays in the oceans, and the oceans store more heat. El Nino years, the opposite happens. The effect from ENSO fluctuations year to year is usually much bigger than the effect from the backradiation increase. However, ENSO is like noise, while the backradiation is a steady rise, so over the long term it dominates.

What is notably lacking from any actual science is any claim that the oceans' "appetite for IR" is changing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If Bernie Madoff had AR5 as his accountant, he'd still be in fund management


...returns have been stunted ever since a few years back when the oceans started absorbing a greater share of your investment.... "

 

[Wuwei]

The oceans absorb almost all the IR that falls on them, and most of the sunlight. That never changes, and aside from you, nobody ever said it did.

That incoming energy heats the upper oceans, then the oceans heat the atmosphere. That also never changes.

The backradiation slowly changes the forcing function, increasing slightly over time, due to greenhouse gases.

However, that's just the input. Output also determines how much heat is stored or lost by the ocean. If it's a La Nina year, cooler waters are at the surface, less heat is transferred to the atmosphere, so more heat stays in the oceans, and the oceans store more heat. El Nino years, the opposite happens. The effect from ENSO fluctuations year to year is usually much bigger than the effect from the backradiation increase. However, ENSO is like noise, while the backradiation is a steady rise, so over the long term it dominates.

That makes sense. It seems that thermal input to the oceans is somewhat constant (other than increasing GHG's), while the thermal output is not. Is there good succinct reference to that. I don't want to wade through AR5.

 

[mamooth]

Well, chapter 3 of AR5 is only, like, 60 pages.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

Something more concise? Hmm. Maybe this Skeptical Science piece, which links to all kinds of places.

2015: Still No Let Up in Ocean Warming

 

[jc456]

Who do you believe has said such a thing?

I think those of us on the mainstream science side can say that the world is getting warmer and it is doing so in response primarily to human GHG emissions. Some combination of natural cycles and changes in the Earth's climate have caused a large amount of warm surface water to be subducted deeper than is typical.

That's what I can say.

and yet:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/26/polar...ek-report.html

"'Polar Vortex' set to menace US in a week: Report
Javier E. David | @TeflonGeek
Saturday, 26 Mar 2016 | 5:03 PM ET"

Mother nature says otherwise:

" Accuweather.com reported on Saturday that the dreaded "Polar Vortex" — a formation of arctic air that has menaced swaths of the country for the better part of the last few winters — is set to return in early April. According to the forecast, the temperature shift may bring "record cold to parts of the Midwest and East."

As Spring begins its first full month, temperatures will average 15-30 degrees Fahrenheit below normal, Accuweather said. Some of the coldest air will target the North Central States, with New York City seeing 40-degree temperatures. A separate forecast this week from Weather 2000 also predicted a return of a "Vernal Vortex" that would likely mean colder air through early April."

 

[jc456]

So a tiny poof of CO2 in the atmosphere is driving gobs of excess heat deep down into the ocean.

You can say that with a straight face and not crack up over how obviously stupid and false it is?

I agree if someone is saying that, it is stupid and false. But I haven't seen any serious person say that CO2 is driving heat deep into the ocean. At least I hope the more scientifically minded aren't.

Every scientist, denier or warmer, believes it is mostly visible wave lengths, UV, etc that penetrate and provide heat deep in the ocean. What the GHGs do is to cut down the amount of heat escaping via IR radiation from the ocean surface to space.

Stupid and false is what this "excuse" for the surface temperature hiatus was all about. Knowing that the IPCC was gonna acknowledge and address "the pause" in their upcoming report -- BTK (trenberth ocean heating paper) RUSHED a "mini paper" (actually a letter form submission) to the publisher with their fractured "re-analysis" of deep heating ocean.. Phony artifacts and all to make the claim that they "found" ACCELERATIONS in the rates of ocean heating just prior to the "pause". Like in the previous couple decades. Those accelerations are not IN the NOAA "rawer" version of deep ocean heating. This EXCUSE got VERY WIDE coverage in the media -- thanks to the activist team of authors and their syncophants. Like -----

The relentless increase of ocean heat

[[Judith Curry summarizes the TORRENT of propaganda about the Oceans "eating the global warming heat" during the "non-existent pause" by quoting Joe Romm quoting the nutcase Dana Nuticelli from skepshitscience... ]]

Let me extract the key points and figures. Back in July, scientist Dana Nuccitelli summarized a new study, “Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content“:

Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.
As suspected, much of the ‘missing heat’ Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans. Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.
Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate. Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans.
The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security.

****************************************

Go back a page and look at the NOAA version of ocean heating to 700m.. There WAS a positive and fairly CONSTANT run-up in ocean heating prior to "the pause".. I acknowledge that delays are expected in a system so vast -- so it's PLAUSIBLE that the oceans ate some heat. AND MAYBE had a delayed effect on surface temperatures. Even WITHOUT the mania of Trenberths' self-injected re-analysis biases and artifacts which were intended to give the impression that these effects were exactly CONCURRENT with the pause.

But here's the importance of this battle over the excuse..

1) We have no credible sufficient data to see if that run-up from the 1970s was UNIQUE in any way or what the immediate prior rates were to the detail needed to find a "global warming" signature at 700m..

2) If it WAS a very delayed effect on absorbing and storing heat -- the likely mechanism was that the ocean appetite got stimulated not by GH radiative imbalance -- but with a combo of that with direct solar insolation which was the actual "meal" consumed..

If the 2nd point is true -- then there might exist a HUGE NEGATIVE feedback on greenhouse warming that would wreck havoc with the folklore of accelerated, irreversible, run away GW.. That thing we were told is CERTAIN if certain trigger temps are met.

All I know -- is that the public was fed a huge dose of propaganda and BS from the SAME HANDFUL of activist scientists hiding out in lab coats with high credentials..

You are reading way more into my simple post than I intended. I was not concerned with "missing heat", the "pause", or any controversial subject. I am a stickler for understanding the correct mechanism for climate. Period. Not climate change.

A lot of the kids on this forum have the impression that scientists think back radiation HEATS the ocean. It does not do that. The ocean is already hot from LW radiation. As I said in my post, back radiation prevents the ocean from loosing so much heat at the very top skin, as it would if there were no GHGs.

I was referring to Frank's phrasing of CO2 "driving gobs of excess heat deep down into the ocean". It would be more correct to say that GHG's prevent "gobs of heat from radiating out of the ocean." I guess the point is too subtle for most.

Furthermore his "tiny poof" of CO2 has 1/4 of the mass of H2O vapor. They are both tiny poofs if that is the way people want to think. The amount of CO2 is not trivial compared to H2O.

I'll say it again, if the Sun is in a cooling phase, then Shortwave IR is down, and if Shortwave IR is down, than LWIR has to be down, and even if one believes in back radiation, that would mean that magic back radiation is down. so where the fk is the heat at that they miraculously state is making warmer evah records? I'm just saying, the science ain't in fact working to fit their outcome.

 

[jc456]

You can not have A negative imbalance and not be cooling.

Right.

So what have they missed?

No, the question is what you missed.

And these are supposed to be professionals... so they just make up things? Where is their extra energy coming from?

The professionals did not miss anything. Technically it is a sort of virtual extra energy. All scientists believe the GHG's backscatter prevents that large earth radiation from being large. In short you have to believe in back radiation in order to understand the apparent energy imbalance. You have previously stated that you don't believe in back radiation, if you still disbelieve, you will have to be the one to "just make up things".

sorry, still don't believe in back radiation, there is no evidence to support it.

I totally agree with W's question.

Until those who deny backradiation can come up with an explanation using physics to account for surface temperature being all out of proportion to solar input, then the discussion is useless. And make no mistake, the difference is huge, it is not some small quibble over measuring surface temps or solar input. It is 15C difference, more than enough to turn the Earth into a frozen ice cube.

Ian, sorry for the delay getting to your post. Do you believe that back radiation is absorbed by the surface?

And do you believe back radiation is heat?

 

[Crick]

[
sorry, still don't believe in back radiation, there is no evidence to support it.

Ian, sorry for the delay getting to your post. Do you believe that back radiation is absorbed by the surface?

And do you believe back radiation is heat?

What happens when you step outside and the summer sun shines on you?

And if you'd like a little more technical evidence of a DIRECT FUCKING MEASUREMENT OF BACKRADIATION:

P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)

18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change

P1.7

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate

W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin

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.

This is the fourth time - at least - that Evans 2006 has been posted. Where do you get the fucking cojones to claim there's no evidence to support back radiation?

 

[jc456]

[
sorry, still don't believe in back radiation, there is no evidence to support it.

Ian, sorry for the delay getting to your post. Do you believe that back radiation is absorbed by the surface?

And do you believe back radiation is heat?

What happens when you step outside and the summer sun shines on you?

And if you'd like a little more technical evidence of a DIRECT FUCKING MEASUREMENT OF BACKRADIATION:

P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)

18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change

P1.7

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate

W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin

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.

This is the fourth time - at least - that Evans 2006 has been posted. Where do you get the fucking cojones to claim there's no evidence to support back radiation?

I asked Ian if he believes back radiation not short wave UV from the sun. Funny, I thought you were climate smart, guess not

 

[jc456]

[
sorry, still don't believe in back radiation, there is no evidence to support it.

Ian, sorry for the delay getting to your post. Do you believe that back radiation is absorbed by the surface?

And do you believe back radiation is heat?

What happens when you step outside and the summer sun shines on you?

And if you'd like a little more technical evidence of a DIRECT FUCKING MEASUREMENT OF BACKRADIATION:

P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)

18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change

P1.7

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate

W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin

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.

This is the fourth time - at least - that Evans 2006 has been posted. Where do you get the fucking cojones to claim there's no evidence to support back radiation?

By the way, heat comes from the sun rays and heat from the surface from long wave IR. That is heat BTW. Guess why?

 

[Crick]

[
sorry, still don't believe in back radiation, there is no evidence to support it.

Ian, sorry for the delay getting to your post. Do you believe that back radiation is absorbed by the surface?

And do you believe back radiation is heat?

What happens when you step outside and the summer sun shines on you?

And if you'd like a little more technical evidence of a DIRECT FUCKING MEASUREMENT OF BACKRADIATION:

P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)

18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change

P1.7

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate

W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin

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.

This is the fourth time - at least - that Evans 2006 has been posted. Where do you get the fucking cojones to claim there's no evidence to support back radiation?

Frank, JC, why do you think this post is funny? It makes you look like fools.

 

[Crick]

[
sorry, still don't believe in back radiation, there is no evidence to support it.

Ian, sorry for the delay getting to your post. Do you believe that back radiation is absorbed by the surface?

And do you believe back radiation is heat?

What happens when you step outside and the summer sun shines on you?

And if you'd like a little more technical evidence of a DIRECT FUCKING MEASUREMENT OF BACKRADIATION:

P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)

18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change

P1.7

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate

W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin

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.

This is the fourth time - at least - that Evans 2006 has been posted. Where do you get the fucking cojones to claim there's no evidence to support back radiation?

I asked Ian if he believes back radiation not short wave UV from the sun. Funny, I thought you were climate smart, guess not

And Ian does believe back radiation takes place and significantly warms the surface of the planet. He thinks you're a numbskull on this very topic. What did YOU think Ian believes?

 

[Crick]

[
sorry, still don't believe in back radiation, there is no evidence to support it.

Ian, sorry for the delay getting to your post. Do you believe that back radiation is absorbed by the surface?

And do you believe back radiation is heat?

What happens when you step outside and the summer sun shines on you?

And if you'd like a little more technical evidence of a DIRECT FUCKING MEASUREMENT OF BACKRADIATION:

P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)

18th Conference on Climate Variability and Change

P1.7

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate

W.F.J. Evans, North West Research Associates, Bellevue, WA; and E. Puckrin

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.

This is the fourth time - at least - that Evans 2006 has been posted. Where do you get the fucking cojones to claim there's no evidence to support back radiation?

By the way, heat comes from the sun rays and heat from the surface from long wave IR. That is heat BTW. Guess why?

I cannot imagine a more fruitless five seconds than hearing your understanding of heat.