To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[CrusaderFrank]

[
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.

Because you think it says the last 2PPM of CO2 added to the atmosphere are causing earthquakes and heating the oceans 700m down, that's what's funny

 

[Crick]

Do show us where it says the last 2 ppm of CO2 are causing earthquakes. Show us where that article says anything about 2 ppm of anything.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How does CO2 work? Does the heat rise on an exponential basis? Did the first 50PPM added from 1850-1940 do nothing, but the last 70PPM cause the "forcing" (LOL)

 

[Crick]

I am absolutely certain that you do not know what the word "exponential" means.

 

[jc456]

I am absolutely certain that you do not know what the word "exponential" means.

well I guess you don't with that confession.

 

[Crick]

You either.

 

[jc456]

You either.

hahahahaahhhahahaha i either what. You confessed and I wasn't asked.

 

[Crick]

It was an unprompted observation. Given your remarkable science-know-how and prodigious general knowledge, I should think you must receive this sort of thing frequently.


I'd still like to see an excerpt from Post #979 that suggests the last 2 ppm CO2 are responsible for earthquakes.

 

[jc456]

It was an unprompted observation. Given your remarkable science-know-how and prodigious general knowledge, I should think you must receive this sort of thing frequently.


I'd still like to see an excerpt from Post #979 that suggests the last 2 ppm CO2 are responsible for earthquakes.

well again, do you believe in the IPCC 15 year pause or not? You still haven't answered the question.

 

[Crick]

I'm afraid I did. Terribly sorry if you missed it. Have you seen the IPCC's conclusion in AR5? I'm pretty sure you told me you'd read the whole thing. All I'd care would be if you'd skimmed the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) or WGI itself. How did their conclusions change from stating that they believed the pause was taking place?

I assume you're aware that the people who made AR5 and who will be making AR6 and the Earth's climate scientists on whose work those documents are based have yet to find a problem with Karl et al 2015. Certainly current warming doesn't support any such idea as "the pause".

 

[jc456]

I'm afraid I did. Terribly sorry if you missed it. Have you seen the IPCC's conclusion in AR5? I'm pretty sure you told me you'd read the whole thing. All I'd care would be if you'd skimmed the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) or WGI itself. How did their conclusions change from stating that they believed the pause was taking place?

I assume you're aware that the people who made AR5 and who will be making AR6 and the Earth's climate scientists on whose work those documents are based have yet to find a problem with Karl et al 2015. Certainly current warming doesn't support any such idea as "the pause".

which post number was that, I couldn't find it in a search in this thread.

 

[Crick]

Which post number was what?

 

[RollingThunder]

Here is a very detailed and comprehensive analysis of the source of the crackpot paranoid conspiracy theory ideation that runs through the denier cultists like shit through a sewer. This material is very well worth reading for an understanding of the corrupt basis for the whole astroturfed denier cult movement.

The “Climate change deceit” conspiracy theory and global warming
(excerpts...and some merging for brevity)
During the last forty years, the fossil fuel multibillionaires; the carbon barons – big oil CEOs, the Middle East petro tyrants and extreme islamists, Russian super-rich oligarchs and Chinese Communist Party oil princelings living high on the fossil fuel paradigm - have shown that they will do anything to postpone the inevitable paradigm shift from the fossil fuel paradigm to the paradigm of an ecologically sustainable future. They invest massively in propaganda to delay political action and mislead the public.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) – one of the founders of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) together with World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) coordinate the writing of extensive reports on the changing climate every 6th – 7th year. The report is compiled by almost 2000 of the most respected climate researchers in the world, who all publish frequently in peer reviewed scientific journals. These reports are aggressively attacked by especially the American fossil fuel industry through their enormous propaganda apparatus with unlimited petro-dollar funding.

A bit more than a decade and some years ago, fancy, two page full color advertisements in the biggest international magazines claimed that everything that the IPCC said was false. Somebody in UNEP calculated the costs of all these ads to be about the same as the entire 1999 UNEP annual budget of 95 million dollars.

Somebody called ’Global Climate Coalition’ was behind the ads. Some research on this organisation revealed that it was a PR group financed by ‘Western Fuels Association’ and more or less all oil and coal companies in Europe and the USA and US car manufacturers like General Motors among others. That year, in 1999, BP, Shell and GM left the organisation because they had lost faith in its integrity. The CEOs of BP as well as Shell said they believed the IPCC made accurate reports, and would start investing in developing non-fossil energy sources instead. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition

“The deceit behind the attempts to discredit evidence of climate change reveals matters of importance. This deceit has a clear purpose: to confuse the public about the status of knowledge of global climate change, thus delaying effective action to mitigate climate change. The danger is that delay will cause tipping points to be passed, such that large climate impacts become inevitable, including the loss of all Arctic sea ice, destabilization of the West Antarctic ice sheet with disastrous sea level rise later this century, and extermination of a large fraction of animal and plant species.

Make no doubt, however, if tipping points are passed, if we, in effect, destroy Creation, passing on to our children, grandchildren, and the unborn a situation out of their control, the contrarians who work to deny and confuse will not be the principal culprits. The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present. They will continue to entertain even if the Titanic begins to take on water. Their role and consequence is only as a diversion from what is important. The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children. The court jesters are their jesters, occasionally paid for services, and more substantively supported by the captains’ disinformation campaigns.

'Global warming stopped in 1998,' has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the “El Niño of the century” coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend. NASA – GISS 2007 report Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)"
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20070816_realdeal.pdf
- Dr James Hansen, director, NASA Goddard Institute

 

[IanC]

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?

I have gone into great depth answering this question on numerous occasions. Do you hope that my answer will change?

Of course radiation from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface. Where else would it go?

Heat is a property of macroscopic quantities. Warmer matter produces more radiation than cooler matter, hence the overall net transfer of energy is always warmer to cooler.

On the microscopic level, radiation just is. One molecule doesn't have a 'temperature'. Only large groups of molecules have an average kinetic energy which considered it's temperature.

Molecules in close proximity collide with each other, producing blackbody radiation proportional to its temperature.

The blackbody radiation from the surface either escapes to space, or is absorbed by the atmosphere, which warms the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere produces blackbody radiation which either escapes to space, is reabsorbed by the atmosphere, or reaches the surface where it is absorbed.

The equilibrium temperature of the surface is defined by energy input minus energy output. Radiation is part of that equation. While the atmosphere is cooler than the surface, it is much warmer than empty space, therefore it 'gives back' some of the radiation it receives, which keeps the surface warmer than if there were no atmosphere.

Reality is obviously more complex. There are massive heatsinks that are filled with unimaginable energy, eg liquid flowing oceans and gaseous flowing atmosphere.

I don't expect you will understand all this this time because you have failed in the past. But I wish you would try.

 

[SSDD]

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?

I have gone into great depth answering this question on numerous occasions. Do you hope that my answer will change?

Of course radiation from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface. Where else would it go?

Heat is a property of macroscopic quantities. Warmer matter produces more radiation than cooler matter, hence the overall net transfer of energy is always warmer to cooler.

On the microscopic level, radiation just is. One molecule doesn't have a 'temperature'. Only large groups of molecules have an average kinetic energy which considered it's temperature.

Molecules in close proximity collide with each other, producing blackbody radiation proportional to its temperature.

The blackbody radiation from the surface either escapes to space, or is absorbed by the atmosphere, which warms the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere produces blackbody radiation which either escapes to space, is reabsorbed by the atmosphere, or reaches the surface where it is absorbed.

The equilibrium temperature of the surface is defined by energy input minus energy output. Radiation is part of that equation. While the atmosphere is cooler than the surface, it is much warmer than empty space, therefore it 'gives back' some of the radiation it receives, which keeps the surface warmer than if there were no atmosphere.

Reality is obviously more complex. There are massive heatsinks that are filled with unimaginable energy, eg liquid flowing oceans and gaseous flowing atmosphere.

I don't expect you will understand all this this time because you have failed in the past. But I wish you would try.

So where is the tropospheric hot spot which would be the inevitable result of a greenhouse effect that you believe exists if more CO2 were added to the system?

I don't expect you to ever answer the question...or understand the ramifications of the fact that the hot spot isn't, never has, nor will it ever be there....I expect you to go on with your delusion till you die...believing regardless of what the evidence before your eyes, and the result of every observation ever made is screaming to you.

 

[jc456]

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?

I have gone into great depth answering this question on numerous occasions. Do you hope that my answer will change?

Of course radiation from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface. Where else would it go?

Heat is a property of macroscopic quantities. Warmer matter produces more radiation than cooler matter, hence the overall net transfer of energy is always warmer to cooler.

On the microscopic level, radiation just is. One molecule doesn't have a 'temperature'. Only large groups of molecules have an average kinetic energy which considered it's temperature.

Molecules in close proximity collide with each other, producing blackbody radiation proportional to its temperature.

The blackbody radiation from the surface either escapes to space, or is absorbed by the atmosphere, which warms the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere produces blackbody radiation which either escapes to space, is reabsorbed by the atmosphere, or reaches the surface where it is absorbed.

The equilibrium temperature of the surface is defined by energy input minus energy output. Radiation is part of that equation. While the atmosphere is cooler than the surface, it is much warmer than empty space, therefore it 'gives back' some of the radiation it receives, which keeps the surface warmer than if there were no atmosphere.

Reality is obviously more complex. There are massive heatsinks that are filled with unimaginable energy, eg liquid flowing oceans and gaseous flowing atmosphere.

I don't expect you will understand all this this time because you have failed in the past. But I wish you would try.

thanks for responding.

First, the atmosphere is cooler than the surface, it has been and always will be based on sunlight and the fact the surface absorbs the sun's energy. the earth then radiates what it absorbs back up to the atmosphere, LWIR and that has heat. i.e., When I heat a frying pan on the stove top and turn off the heat source, the pan will radiate heat for some time. It will begin near a constant it was at with the flame and then slowly cool off. The air above the pan does not re-radiate back to the pan to keep it hot, nor does the air make it hot once it cools off. BTW, I know you know I will never believe that occurs. The reason, there just isn't evidence of it occurring, cooler air cannot warm anything warmer than itself. Feel free to post up an experiment that shows me wrong.

As for your back radiation, if there was indeed back radiation, you claim it comes from CO2. Are you sure? Do you have that evidence as well? Come on, you've been following my posts over the years now, you know I have my expectations and to today, there has not been one iota of evidence ever presented that shows the magic power of CO2 gas. I truly wish to see it, cause it sounds way too magical for me.

I have observed clouds at night keep the ground below warmer than if the clouds weren't there in the winter. I've experienced it, I've felt the difference. When the ground is cooler than the cloud the cloud radiates to the surface, it's always been in winter months again when the surface air is cooler than the clouds.

I believe in the bright yellow ball in the sky and its power to heat. I also observe the surface of the earth as it heats up from that source. I also can see the heat radiating upward off of surfaces such as asphalt and cars. yep, I can see it radiate and it is always moving ground up never air down. I also know that the surface can be hotter than the rays hitting my own skin, so indeed the surface material gets very hot, enough to fry an egg.

You have asked me before why I don't believe in back radiation, and my answer is that I don't see it, nor has anyone ever proved it. you've also asked me if I think molecules radiate and I've said yes. Warm to cool is the direction only. I can't help that I believe that, the fact is there isn't evidence and for two years now, no one has presented it.

 

[jc456]

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?

I have gone into great depth answering this question on numerous occasions. Do you hope that my answer will change?

Of course radiation from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface. Where else would it go?

Heat is a property of macroscopic quantities. Warmer matter produces more radiation than cooler matter, hence the overall net transfer of energy is always warmer to cooler.

On the microscopic level, radiation just is. One molecule doesn't have a 'temperature'. Only large groups of molecules have an average kinetic energy which considered it's temperature.

Molecules in close proximity collide with each other, producing blackbody radiation proportional to its temperature.

The blackbody radiation from the surface either escapes to space, or is absorbed by the atmosphere, which warms the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere produces blackbody radiation which either escapes to space, is reabsorbed by the atmosphere, or reaches the surface where it is absorbed.

The equilibrium temperature of the surface is defined by energy input minus energy output. Radiation is part of that equation. While the atmosphere is cooler than the surface, it is much warmer than empty space, therefore it 'gives back' some of the radiation it receives, which keeps the surface warmer than if there were no atmosphere.

Reality is obviously more complex. There are massive heatsinks that are filled with unimaginable energy, eg liquid flowing oceans and gaseous flowing atmosphere.

I don't expect you will understand all this this time because you have failed in the past. But I wish you would try.

So where is the tropospheric hot spot which would be the inevitable result of a greenhouse effect that you believe exists if more CO2 were added to the system?

I don't expect you to ever answer the question...or understand the ramifications of the fact that the hot spot isn't, never has, nor will it ever be there....I expect you to go on with your delusion till you die...believing regardless of what the evidence before your eyes, and the result of every observation ever made is screaming to you.

seems like it is you and me again bubba. I'm with you though. They can make all the statements they want, but as you so eloquently explained, the earth is showing their beliefs wrong. And I am happy to change my beliefs based on some evidence, to which there has been zero of in here. Thanks for remaining consistent.

 

[Crick]

Show us a link that says the hotspot is an absolute requirement of greenhouse warming?

I will show you links that say stratospheric cooling is the absolute requirement of greenhouse warming and it is present almost everywhere..

Global Warming Causes Stratospheric Cooling | Weather Underground

Vertical Human Fingerprint Found in Stratospheric Cooling, Tropospheric Warming - Yale Climate Connections

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/278.htm

 

[jc456]

Show us a link that says the hotspot is an absolute requirement of greenhouse warming?

I will show you links that say stratospheric cooling is the absolute requirement of greenhouse warming and it is present almost everywhere..

Global Warming Causes Stratospheric Cooling | Weather Underground

Vertical Human Fingerprint Found in Stratospheric Cooling, Tropospheric Warming - Yale Climate Connections

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/278.htm

Crick, post an abstract from just one of these that makes your point.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here is a very detailed and comprehensive analysis of the source of the crackpot paranoid conspiracy theory ideation that runs through the denier cultists like shit through a sewer. This material is very well worth reading for an understanding of the corrupt basis for the whole astroturfed denier cult movement.

The “Climate change deceit” conspiracy theory and global warming
(excerpts...and some merging for brevity)
During the last forty years, the fossil fuel multibillionaires; the carbon barons – big oil CEOs, the Middle East petro tyrants and extreme islamists, Russian super-rich oligarchs and Chinese Communist Party oil princelings living high on the fossil fuel paradigm - have shown that they will do anything to postpone the inevitable paradigm shift from the fossil fuel paradigm to the paradigm of an ecologically sustainable future. They invest massively in propaganda to delay political action and mislead the public.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) – one of the founders of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) together with World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) coordinate the writing of extensive reports on the changing climate every 6th – 7th year. The report is compiled by almost 2000 of the most respected climate researchers in the world, who all publish frequently in peer reviewed scientific journals. These reports are aggressively attacked by especially the American fossil fuel industry through their enormous propaganda apparatus with unlimited petro-dollar funding.

A bit more than a decade and some years ago, fancy, two page full color advertisements in the biggest international magazines claimed that everything that the IPCC said was false. Somebody in UNEP calculated the costs of all these ads to be about the same as the entire 1999 UNEP annual budget of 95 million dollars.

Somebody called ’Global Climate Coalition’ was behind the ads. Some research on this organisation revealed that it was a PR group financed by ‘Western Fuels Association’ and more or less all oil and coal companies in Europe and the USA and US car manufacturers like General Motors among others. That year, in 1999, BP, Shell and GM left the organisation because they had lost faith in its integrity. The CEOs of BP as well as Shell said they believed the IPCC made accurate reports, and would start investing in developing non-fossil energy sources instead. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition

“The deceit behind the attempts to discredit evidence of climate change reveals matters of importance. This deceit has a clear purpose: to confuse the public about the status of knowledge of global climate change, thus delaying effective action to mitigate climate change. The danger is that delay will cause tipping points to be passed, such that large climate impacts become inevitable, including the loss of all Arctic sea ice, destabilization of the West Antarctic ice sheet with disastrous sea level rise later this century, and extermination of a large fraction of animal and plant species.

Make no doubt, however, if tipping points are passed, if we, in effect, destroy Creation, passing on to our children, grandchildren, and the unborn a situation out of their control, the contrarians who work to deny and confuse will not be the principal culprits. The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present. They will continue to entertain even if the Titanic begins to take on water. Their role and consequence is only as a diversion from what is important. The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children. The court jesters are their jesters, occasionally paid for services, and more substantively supported by the captains’ disinformation campaigns.

'Global warming stopped in 1998,' has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the “El Niño of the century” coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend. NASA – GISS 2007 report Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)"
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20070816_realdeal.pdf
- Dr James Hansen, director, NASA Goddard Institute

You just posted a series of charts showing that "Global Warming" stopped in 1998