To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[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.

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 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.

As always, you fail to understand the simplest concepts. Please don't ask me to explain in the future.

I will point out one strawman in your post. You say that I claim that backradiation comes from CO2, no quote of my actual words of course.

I claim that backradiation is predominantly produced by blackbody radiation from molecular collisions. Which is proportional to temperature.

How does extra CO2 increase atmospheric temperature? All the energy in certain bands of surface radiation is absorbed to extinction by about 10 metres. Adding more CO2 reduces the 10 metre extinction height. By simple math that anyone can comprehend, the same energy added to a smaller volume of gas will cause an increase in temperature. QED.

 

[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 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.

As always, you fail to understand the simplest concepts. Please don't ask me to explain in the future.

I will point out one strawman in your post. You say that I claim that backradiation comes from CO2, no quote of my actual words of course.

I claim that backradiation is predominantly produced by blackbody radiation from molecular collisions. Which is proportional to temperature.

How does extra CO2 increase atmospheric temperature? All the energy in certain bands of surface radiation is absorbed to extinction by about 10 metres. Adding more CO2 reduces the 10 metre extinction height. By simple math that anyone can comprehend, the same energy added to a smaller volume of gas will cause an increase in temperature. QED.

and yet the math can't be converted into an experiment.

And I'll agree, you never claimed CO2, yet that is the crux of the communication in the environmental forum.

Therefore, I thought you were referring to CO2 molecules. So not sure what other molecules you'd be speaking about since that is the argument gas.

 

[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.

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 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.

As always, you fail to understand the simplest concepts. Please don't ask me to explain in the future.

I will point out one strawman in your post. You say that I claim that backradiation comes from CO2, no quote of my actual words of course.

I claim that backradiation is predominantly produced by blackbody radiation from molecular collisions. Which is proportional to temperature.

How does extra CO2 increase atmospheric temperature? All the energy in certain bands of surface radiation is absorbed to extinction by about 10 metres. Adding more CO2 reduces the 10 metre extinction height. By simple math that anyone can comprehend, the same energy added to a smaller volume of gas will cause an increase in temperature. QED.

and yet the math can't be converted into an experiment.

And I'll agree, you never claimed CO2, yet that is the crux of the communication in the environmental forum.

I am not responsible for other people's opinions. I feel just as obligated to point out the flaws greenhouse gas deniers as I do in greenhouse gas distorters.

More, perhaps, because it fucks up the Skeptical case by giving the warmers something to scoff at. You don't counter a lie with another lie. The truth should suffice.

 

[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.

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 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.

As always, you fail to understand the simplest concepts. Please don't ask me to explain in the future.

I will point out one strawman in your post. You say that I claim that backradiation comes from CO2, no quote of my actual words of course.

I claim that backradiation is predominantly produced by blackbody radiation from molecular collisions. Which is proportional to temperature.

How does extra CO2 increase atmospheric temperature? All the energy in certain bands of surface radiation is absorbed to extinction by about 10 metres. Adding more CO2 reduces the 10 metre extinction height. By simple math that anyone can comprehend, the same energy added to a smaller volume of gas will cause an increase in temperature. QED.

and yet the math can't be converted into an experiment.

Are you denying that there have not been experiments to quantify how much CO2 is needed to absorb a known amount of CO2 specific IR? You're grasping at straws.

 

[jc456]

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 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.

As always, you fail to understand the simplest concepts. Please don't ask me to explain in the future.

I will point out one strawman in your post. You say that I claim that backradiation comes from CO2, no quote of my actual words of course.

I claim that backradiation is predominantly produced by blackbody radiation from molecular collisions. Which is proportional to temperature.

How does extra CO2 increase atmospheric temperature? All the energy in certain bands of surface radiation is absorbed to extinction by about 10 metres. Adding more CO2 reduces the 10 metre extinction height. By simple math that anyone can comprehend, the same energy added to a smaller volume of gas will cause an increase in temperature. QED.

and yet the math can't be converted into an experiment.

And I'll agree, you never claimed CO2, yet that is the crux of the communication in the environmental forum.

I am not responsible for other people's opinions. I feel just as obligated to point out the flaws greenhouse gas deniers as I do in greenhouse gas distorters.

More, perhaps, because it fucks up the Skeptical case by giving the warmers something to scoff at. You don't counter a lie with another lie. The truth should suffice.

yeah, I get that. I've always appreciated your approach. You have class in your style.

I only disagree that there is back radiation and that CO2 is a dangerous gas. I need validation to change my mind. So far that hasn't occurred.

 

[jc456]

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 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.

As always, you fail to understand the simplest concepts. Please don't ask me to explain in the future.

I will point out one strawman in your post. You say that I claim that backradiation comes from CO2, no quote of my actual words of course.

I claim that backradiation is predominantly produced by blackbody radiation from molecular collisions. Which is proportional to temperature.

How does extra CO2 increase atmospheric temperature? All the energy in certain bands of surface radiation is absorbed to extinction by about 10 metres. Adding more CO2 reduces the 10 metre extinction height. By simple math that anyone can comprehend, the same energy added to a smaller volume of gas will cause an increase in temperature. QED.

and yet the math can't be converted into an experiment.

Are you denying that there have not been experiments to quantify how much CO2 is needed to absorb a known amount of CO2 specific IR? You're grasping at straws.

I'm sure someone has done tests with CO2. Not stating that at all. I am denying that someone has measured the temperature of the gas and that increasing the gas will cause a temperature increase. Every CO2 experiment that has been posted in this forum has failed in that aspect. EVERYONE.

 

[SSDD]

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

This might be a good place for you to start:

Predicted changes 1958-1999. Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, 2006, CCSP, Chapter 1, p 25, based on Santer et al. 2000
Same document, recorded change/decade, Hadley Centre weather balloons 1979-1999, p. 116 , g. 5.7E, from Thorne et al., 2005.

The hot spot was predicted by the hypothesis to be the human fingerprint...the signature of anthropogenically caused global warming....never happened. In real science when a prediction made by a hypothesis never comes to pass, what do you do with the hypothesis?....What did climate science do with the hypothesis....this should tell you that climate science isn't actually science at all.

This is how it goes with climate pseudoscience....they make predictions..the predictions fail to happen...they pretend that they never made the predictions even though the internet proves them to be liars every time....

Causes leave signatures....where is the signature of human caused global warming?

 

[SSDD]

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.

The rapid rise in the warming rate is the result of data manipulation....nothing more....nothing less.

It definitely is for OHeatContent. There's no real increase in the rise rate during the period where we have acceptable GLOBAL data.

There's not even changes in the atmos/surface RATES worth attributing to the GW theory that predicts ACCELERATED warming.. Whether the data is manipulated or not..

What cracks me up is that the warmer wackos have been claiming that every year since 1998 is the hottest year evah....and they claim that each year is warmer by a hundredth of a degree....and in the same sentence they seem to be claiming that this hundredth of a degree represents "rapid" temperature increase....what is the margin of error for those claims of the hottest year evah by a hundredth of a degree?

 

[Crick]

Orders of magnitude less than the margin of error in data from the LIA, MWP and the Roman Period.

From a Bob Tisdale paper; Bob has provided the names of three papers supporting Karl et al 2015 that each have lots of interesting information about the upgrade from ERSST v3b to v4.

http://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds277.0/docs/ERSST.V4.P1.JCLI-D-14-00006.1.pdf

http://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds277.0/docs/ERSST.V4.P2.JCLI-D-14-00007.1.pdf

Further Exploring and Quantifying Uncertainties for Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) Version 4 (v4)

This last is a preliminary online release.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Karl et al 2015 = the observations are wrong LOL

..and you post that as "Science"

 

[Crick]

Frank, if you ever again feel inclined to explain what you think I've done and why you think I've done it, take off you left shoe and shove it in your mouth then take off your right shoe and use it to destroy your keyboard.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW is the biggest, boldest, most brazen scam in human history. They alter data they don't like and do so claiming it's science.

Hopefully, Trump zeroes out all Federal funding and fires the entire climate change divisions at every Federal agency

 

[Crick]

And this evidence of a scam and of altered data... is where, Frank?

 

[SSDD]

Orders of magnitude less than the margin of error in data from the LIA, MWP and the Roman Period.

From a Bob Tisdale paper; Bob has provided the names of three papers supporting Karl et al 2015 that each have lots of interesting information about the upgrade from ERSST v3b to v4.

http://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds277.0/docs/ERSST.V4.P1.JCLI-D-14-00006.1.pdf

http://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds277.0/docs/ERSST.V4.P2.JCLI-D-14-00007.1.pdf

Further Exploring and Quantifying Uncertainties for Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) Version 4 (v4)

This last is a preliminary online release.

Dodge much? Oh wait a minute...I am talking to crick...all dodge all the time.

 

[SSDD]

And this evidence of a scam and of altered data... is where, Frank?

In every post you make in which you claim to be presenting proof of something...anything.

 

[mamooth]

Dodge much? Oh wait a minute...I am talking to crick...all dodge all the time.

You didn't really think your cherrypicking of old studies fooled anyone, or was worth addressing, did you? After all, satellites and balloons both agree that the tropospheric hotspot is there, which leaves you flailing and raging and desperately searching for more old cherrypicks.

 

[Crick]

Do not validate his bullshit. The hotspot is NOT a requirement of GHG warming. Stratospheric cooling is.

 

[jc456]

Dodge much? Oh wait a minute...I am talking to crick...all dodge all the time.

You didn't really think your cherrypicking of old studies fooled anyone, or was worth addressing, did you? After all, satellites and balloons both agree that the tropospheric hotspot is there, which leaves you flailing and raging and desperately searching for more old cherrypicks.

 

[mamooth]

Do not validate his bullshit. The hotspot is NOT a requirement of GHG warming. Stratospheric cooling is.

The hotspot is a requirement for any warming. Solar-caused, GHG-caused, magic-caused, it should be there for any warming from any cause. It's a fingerprint of any warming. Stratospheric cooling is the fingerprint unique to GHG warming.

Thus, SSDD kind of destroys his own natural-causes theories by claiming it's not there.

'Course, it is there, so it's all moot.

See? RSS satellite model data, which every denier spent years swearing was the most perfect data ever created by humans.

 

[jc456]

Do not validate his bullshit. The hotspot is NOT a requirement of GHG warming. Stratospheric cooling is.

The hotspot is a requirement for any warming. Solar-caused, GHG-caused, magic-caused, it should be there for any warming from any cause. It's a fingerprint of any warming. Stratospheric cooling is the fingerprint unique to GHG warming.

Thus, SSDD kind of destroys his own natural-causes theories by claiming it's not there.

'Course, it is there, so it's all moot.

See? RSS satellite model data, which every denier spent years swearing was the most perfect data ever created by humans.

Well merely post the hotspot