What Do YOU Believe is Actually Happening?

[eagle1462010]

Less than reported. Data Manipulation.......Well they have been caught at that..........poor things.

The earth has been warming since.....................the Last ICE AGE....................Mother Nature is bad ass......and eventually she will correct it in the opposite direction..............

 

[jc456]

Dumb ass, SSDD, you have been repeatedly provided with the absorption spectra of the GHGs. Nothing more is needed. At least, not for anyone with the least amount of scientific knowledge. Your ignorance in that department is evident to all, oh you of the intelligent photons.

Dumb ass, SSDD, you have been repeatedly provided with the absorption spectra of the GHGs. Nothing more is needed. At least, not for anyone with the least amount of scientific knowledge. Your ignorance in that department is evident to all, oh you of the intelligent photons.

no he hasn't, or I have seen any empirical data to support your claim. Neither you nor crick have posted any valid material. Post up raw data evidence.

Experiments that show how dangerous 20 PPM of CO2 is to jet streams and pressure systems. How does CO2 mix with water vapor, you have that one? Come on now, I'm no scientist, but I do know that to reach a theory, one needs to prove a hypothesis, and to date you haven't proved the hypothesis. So you have broken hypothesis, no theory. Got that?

 

[jc456]

Now who to believe? An ignoramus that believes in smart photons, or generations of trained physicists? LOL

Now who to believe?
No one funded by government money. NO ONE!!!!!!! And you? please, you're a lost soul.

 

[jc456]

Goodness sakes, here is ol' Preddy stating two sentences and thinking that he has prove the work of decades of thousands of scientists wrong. Mostly has proven himself to be another clueless idiot.

Just as the scientists predicted, every decade, we get more and more record years for temperature.

Goodness sakes here's Old Rocks thinking that all he has to do is speak whatever nonsense he's thinking and it's correct.

It's easy to predict the warming but that doesn't prove its caused by man.

You AGW scam artists always try to steer the argument away from the issue that matters.

No, I simply accept the evidence and observations done by scientists with decades of experiance and study of the subject over the flap yap of an internet ignoramus.

What Do YOU Believe is Actually Happening?

No, I simply accept the evidence and observations done by scientists with decades of (experience) and study of the subject over the flap yap of an internet ignoramus

So you accept nothing. Good to know. See the observations are faked, made up, so it's fiction. So factually speaking you can't make. So I don't believe you!

 

[SSDD]

no he hasn't, or I have seen any empirical data to support your claim. Neither you nor crick have posted any valid material. Post up raw data evidence.

they have posted absorption spectra of CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses...the fact that the gasses absorb and emit IR has never been in dispute. Problem is that they believe that absorption and emission is somehow proof of warming....clearly it isn't as evidenced by the failure of a tropospheric hot spot to materialize even though CO2 has continued to increase. The most basic prediction of the AGW hypothesis is that a tropospheric hot spot would develop due to the backscatter effect slowing the escape of IR from the troposphere. No such hot spot equals failure of the hypothesis. A million plus radiosondes sent up to actually measure the temperature throughout the troposphere have found no such hot spot...result.....failure of the AGW hypothesis.

 

[jc456]

This is hardly early on in the study of GHGs in the atmosphere. In 1859 Tyndall did the first experiments that gave us the absorption spectra of the GHGs. By 1896, Arrhenius quantified the results, and made pretty a pretty accurate estimation of what the doubling of CO2 would do.

We have a pretty good idea of how the GHGs work, and have been creating ever more accurate models for predicting the future. That you choose, for political reasons, to reject the science, does in no way, change the validity of that science. All it does is demonstrate willful ignorance on your part.

And Arrhenius had Herr Koch do an experiment that blows your stupid hypothesis to smithereens

 

[jc456]

no he hasn't, or I have seen any empirical data to support your claim. Neither you nor crick have posted any valid material. Post up raw data evidence.

they have posted absorption spectra of CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses...the fact that the gasses absorb and emit IR has never been in dispute. Problem is that they believe that absorption and emission is somehow proof of warming....clearly it isn't as evidenced by the failure of a tropospheric hot spot to materialize even though CO2 has continued to increase. The most basic prediction of the AGW hypothesis is that a tropospheric hot spot would develop due to the backscatter effect slowing the escape of IR from the troposphere. No such hot spot equals failure of the hypothesis. A million plus radiosondes sent up to actually measure the temperature throughout the troposphere have found no such hot spot...result.....failure of the AGW hypothesis.

SSDD, every experiment that has been posted in this forum since I've been on here showing adding CO2 to a container and reading the temperature of the air in that container has always been zip difference between the controlled container. Even the Mythbuster experiment had but 1 degree change in a container completely filled with CO2 with the PPM probably 10,000PPM. 1 Degree.

I agree CO2 absorbs, but I don't believe it can get hotter than the source heat supply. That, no one has proved in here. Cause I don't believe in back radiation making something more hot.

 

[Wuwei]

Cause I don't believe in back radiation making something more hot.

Right. Nobody should ever believe that.
What physicists believe is that back radiation prevents a hotter body from losing as much heat as it would without back radiation.

 

[jc456]

Cause I don't believe in back radiation making something more hot.

Right. Nobody should ever believe that.
What physicists believe is that back radiation prevents a hotter body from losing as much heat as it would without back radiation.

so sir, if you agree that back radiation doesn't make an object hotter, how does CO2 cause more warming? The sun heats the planet and the government funded scientists who believe CO2 causes the planet to get hotter than the sun rays are wrong. Right?

 

[Wuwei]

Cause I don't believe in back radiation making something more hot.

Right. Nobody should ever believe that.
What physicists believe is that back radiation prevents a hotter body from losing as much heat as it would without back radiation.

so sir, if you agree that back radiation doesn't make an object hotter, how does CO2 cause more warming? The sun heats the planet and the government funded scientists who believe CO2 causes the planet to get hotter than the sun rays are wrong. Right?

What physicists believe is that back radiation prevents a hotter body from losing as much heat as it would without back radiation.

 

[jc456]

Cause I don't believe in back radiation making something more hot.

Right. Nobody should ever believe that.
What physicists believe is that back radiation prevents a hotter body from losing as much heat as it would without back radiation.

so sir, if you agree that back radiation doesn't make an object hotter, how does CO2 cause more warming? The sun heats the planet and the government funded scientists who believe CO2 causes the planet to get hotter than the sun rays are wrong. Right?

What physicists believe is that back radiation prevents a hotter body from losing as much heat as it would without back radiation.

I get it, but how does back radiation make the air hotter? It's the only way man could cause global warming agree?

 

[SSDD]

What physicists believe is that back radiation prevents a hotter body from losing as much heat as it would without back radiation.

If it worked as climate science claims, then a tropospheric hot spot would be an inevitable and inescapable consequence. No such hot spot exists therefore the hypothesis is flawed. How many failed predictions do you think a hypothesis should be allowed before it is scrapped?

 

[Wuwei]

What physicists believe is that back radiation prevents a hotter body from losing as much heat as it would without back radiation.

If it worked as climate science claims, then a tropospheric hot spot would be an inevitable and inescapable consequence. No such hot spot exists therefore the hypothesis is flawed. How many failed predictions do you think a hypothesis should be allowed before it is scrapped?

I am talking about the SB equation not the climate.

 

[IanC]

Cause I don't believe in back radiation making something more hot.

Right. Nobody should ever believe that.
What physicists believe is that back radiation prevents a hotter body from losing as much heat as it would without back radiation.

so sir, if you agree that back radiation doesn't make an object hotter, how does CO2 cause more warming? The sun heats the planet and the government funded scientists who believe CO2 causes the planet to get hotter than the sun rays are wrong. Right?

What physicists believe is that back radiation prevents a hotter body from losing as much heat as it would without back radiation.

I get it, but how does back radiation make the air hotter? It's the only way man could cause global warming agree?

You're finally starting to ask the right questions.

 

[SSDD]

What physicists believe is that back radiation prevents a hotter body from losing as much heat as it would without back radiation.

If it worked as climate science claims, then a tropospheric hot spot would be an inevitable and inescapable consequence. No such hot spot exists therefore the hypothesis is flawed. How many failed predictions do you think a hypothesis should be allowed before it is scrapped?

I am talking about the SB equation not the climate.

First, the SB equation is inappropriately applied to the whole business of atmospheric physics...the atmosphere is composed of gasses and as such the ideal gas laws should be applied. Second, neither the surface off the earth, nor the atmosphere are black bodies...third, if backscatter happened as claimed, the tropospheric hot spot would be the inescapable result...no hot spot exists.. still the hypothesis fails.

 

[jc456]

Cause I don't believe in back radiation making something more hot.

Right. Nobody should ever believe that.
What physicists believe is that back radiation prevents a hotter body from losing as much heat as it would without back radiation.

so sir, if you agree that back radiation doesn't make an object hotter, how does CO2 cause more warming? The sun heats the planet and the government funded scientists who believe CO2 causes the planet to get hotter than the sun rays are wrong. Right?

What physicists believe is that back radiation prevents a hotter body from losing as much heat as it would without back radiation.

I get it, but how does back radiation make the air hotter? It's the only way man could cause global warming agree?

You're finally starting to ask the right questions.

Ian, that's been my question since day one, I've never stopped asking prove CO2 makes the air hotter. To date, crickets.

The reason for the back radiation issue I have is that none of the claims show it makes the air hotter. Nothing put on this forum to date.

But hey, thanks,

 

[Crick]

What physicists believe is that back radiation prevents a hotter body from losing as much heat as it would without back radiation.

If it worked as climate science claims, then a tropospheric hot spot would be an inevitable and inescapable consequence. No such hot spot exists therefore the hypothesis is flawed. How many failed predictions do you think a hypothesis should be allowed before it is scrapped?

No, it would not.

From There's no tropospheric hot spot

This is too big. Go to the link if you want to read the whole thing. I'm going to chop this down to a manageable size.

Part 1: The “Hotspot” as an Alleged Fingerprint of AnthropogenicWarming
A great deal of the confusion surrounding the issue of temperature trends in the uppertroposphere comes from the mistaken belief that the presence or lack of amplification of surface warming in the upper troposphere has some bearing on the attribution of global warming to man-made causes.

It does not.

[SNIP]
the difference in the two simulations [increased solar radiation and increased CO2] is not the presence of a "hot spot" in one and its absence in the other, it's the stratospheric cooling apparent in the increased CO2 simulation.
As he so often does, Monckton serves as a useful example of getting things wrong,claiming:

"the models predict that if and only if Man is the cause of warming, the tropical upper air, six miles above the ground, should warm up to thrice as fast as the surface, but this tropical upper-troposphere “hot-spot” has not been observed..."
This unequivocally incorrect claim was also made in the NIPCC "skeptic" report (Section 3.4), which was signed off on by such supposedly "serious" contrarians as Craig Idso andS. Fred Singer.

The mistaken belief in “skeptic” circles is that the existence of anthropogenic warming somehow hinges on the existence of the tropospheric “hot spot”- it does not. Period.Tropospheric amplification of warming with altitude is the predicted response to increasing radiative forcing from natural sources, such as an increase in solar irradiance, as well.Stratospheric cooling is the real "fingerprint" of enhanced greenhouse vs. natural (e.g. increased solar) warming.

 

[SSDD]

No, it would not.

Of course it would...the tropospheric hot spot is the most fundamental prediction made by climate models...now that it is beyond evident that no such hot spot is going to be forthcoming...you yahoos are spinning your brains trying to get away from that deal breaker that falsified the AGW hypothesis right out of the gate.

 

[PredFan]

We interrupt this thread for an important news flash!

Global Warming Scientist Finds Global Warming, gets to keep job!

Full report at 11pm!

 

[Wuwei]

First, the SB equation is inappropriately applied to the whole business of atmospheric physics.

The SB equation shows that all objects can radiate toward each other no matter the temperature difference. That happens in atmospheric physics.

Second, neither the surface off the earth, nor the atmosphere are black bodies.

Emissivity is accounted for in the SB equation.

if backscatter happened as claimed, the tropospheric hot spot would be the inescapable result...no hot spot exists.. still the hypothesis fails.

Not true. See Crick's explanation.