Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
IanC, measurement especially those done by satellites which monitor OLR should have shown a decrease as CO2 went up if AGW were a fact.
No, that's wrong.
Total OLR should be rather stable, being energy in and energy out have to equalize. It's only in the GHG bands that OLR should be down. In the other bands, it will go up a bit to compensate.
Now, there will be a very small decrease as, bout 0.6 W/M^2, but that's too small to show up in the very noisy plot you showed, and most of it happened before the start of the plot.
ExactlyObservedYour position is challenged
Which position of mine is being challenged?
Observed what?
Exactly.
Let's try a different tactic. Your graph shows that 10 micron surface IR radiation directly escapes into space. If we injected a GHG into the atmosphere that absorbed that radiation does anyone doubt that the atmosphere would warm up from extra retained energy and reduced energy loss to space?
This is the same scenario as CO2 trapping 15 micron IR. It obviously makes a difference.
distribution is another problem they fail to understand.Where is the thread that the odds of a CO2 molecule absorbing a photon are about 1,000,000,000 -1?
What happened old woman..
finally got through to you that OLR was in fact, not decreasing as you have claimed for years and now have invented some other story?
Go ahead and deny that you claimed that OLR was decreasing so I can bring forward some posts from you saying that it was to show what a liar you are.
Please proceed. I'm calling your bluff, liar. This should be funny, watching you now twist and squirm.
Other very specifically testable pieces of the theory predict OLR decreasing....
According to your theory, OLR should be increasing, but we see it decreasing.[/quote\
from: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/13726355/
Global warming theory, being real science, can be disproved in many ways. Long term falling temperatures, falling sea levels, increasing OLR....
from: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9249970/
Plus, you you're avoiding the issue of how the decreasing OLR conclusively disproves your theory.
And on and on it goes....the typical AGW bullshit template...claim a thing till the claim becomes completely indefensible...and then claim that you never made the claim in the first place.
All the facts say you're a cult kook
is this more like what you were expecting? lowered total OLR?
it comes from here CERES Satellite Data and Climate Sensitivity . short time period, large differences depending on temp dataset, long extrapolation. not really something I can put too much faith in. still better than climate models though.
is this more like what you were expecting? lowered total OLR?
it comes from here CERES Satellite Data and Climate Sensitivity . short time period, large differences depending on temp dataset, long extrapolation. not really something I can put too much faith in. still better than climate models though.
That graph is not showing an actual measurement Ian...and it is not confined to the CO2 spectrum. and the decline it shows is based on attitude vs date....in addition..it is a derivation based on the assumption that the atmosphere is a gray body emitter/absorber when it is, in fact, semi transparent. In short...it is bullshit. There is no decrease of OLR in any band at the TOA.
me personally, I like the back radiation one the best. you know that something that has never been proven exists.
is this more like what you were expecting? lowered total OLR?
it comes from here CERES Satellite Data and Climate Sensitivity . short time period, large differences depending on temp dataset, long extrapolation. not really something I can put too much faith in. still better than climate models though.
That graph is not showing an actual measurement Ian...and it is not confined to the CO2 spectrum. and the decline it shows is based on attitude vs date....in addition..it is a derivation based on the assumption that the atmosphere is a gray body emitter/absorber when it is, in fact, semi transparent. In short...it is bullshit. There is no decrease of OLR in any band at the TOA.
the graph is not showing measurements???? hahahaha.
not confined to CO2 specific bands???? hahahaha. did it say it was?
pull up your own data and prove your point. I have to go on what I can find. Willis did a good job of showing that CERES correlates well with other datasets. I think it is useful, more for trend and range than it is for absolute numbers but still useful and probably the best we have.
I think it is pretty funny how you simply hand wave away any evidence you dont like, and replace it with something that you daydreamed about, like smart photons. obviously you are impervious to any logic or evidence.
me personally, I like the back radiation one the best. you know that something that has never been proven exists.
is this more like what you were expecting? lowered total OLR?
it comes from here CERES Satellite Data and Climate Sensitivity . short time period, large differences depending on temp dataset, long extrapolation. not really something I can put too much faith in. still better than climate models though.
That graph is not showing an actual measurement Ian...and it is not confined to the CO2 spectrum. and the decline it shows is based on attitude vs date....in addition..it is a derivation based on the assumption that the atmosphere is a gray body emitter/absorber when it is, in fact, semi transparent. In short...it is bullshit. There is no decrease of OLR in any band at the TOA.
the graph is not showing measurements???? hahahaha.
not confined to CO2 specific bands???? hahahaha. did it say it was?
pull up your own data and prove your point. I have to go on what I can find. Willis did a good job of showing that CERES correlates well with other datasets. I think it is useful, more for trend and range than it is for absolute numbers but still useful and probably the best we have.
I think it is pretty funny how you simply hand wave away any evidence you dont like, and replace it with something that you daydreamed about, like smart photons. obviously you are impervious to any logic or evidence.
I will say however, that if the sun is in a minimum cycle, then I would expect that OLR would decrease some. Cause I would expect the Incoming radiation to be down. so not unexpected in my world.
ExactlyObserved
Observed what?
Exactly.
Let's try a different tactic. Your graph shows that 10 micron surface IR radiation directly escapes into space. If we injected a GHG into the atmosphere that absorbed that radiation does anyone doubt that the atmosphere would warm up from extra retained energy and reduced energy loss to space?
This is the same scenario as CO2 trapping 15 micron IR. It obviously makes a difference.
IF, and i reiterate IF, that gas was the only exit path for that bandwidth of energy I would most likely agree with you but like CO2 water is another path to escape. in simple terms water, in its various forms kills the hypothesis dead in our atmosphere.
Again...you are assuming that absorption and emission equal warming....any actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the claim?...and don't drag out the desert vs coastal areas because water vapor absorbs, and holds energy whereas CO2 does not...it absorbs and immediately emits...what small bit of absorption and emission it can manage considering the amount of energy moved by convection and conduction.
Again...you are assuming that absorption and emission equal warming....any actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the claim?...and don't drag out the desert vs coastal areas because water vapor absorbs, and holds energy whereas CO2 does not...it absorbs and immediately emits...what small bit of absorption and emission it can manage considering the amount of energy moved by convection and conduction.
Again...you are assuming that absorption and emission equal warming....any actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support the claim?...and don't drag out the desert vs coastal areas because water vapor absorbs, and holds energy whereas CO2 does not...it absorbs and immediately emits...what small bit of absorption and emission it can manage considering the amount of energy moved by convection and conduction.
absorbs and emits? then the amount of radiation going into the atmosphere from the surface then comes out the other side. right?
hahahaha. of course it doesnt. explain!
Smart photons
Smart photons
What were their scores on the Wonderlic test?
still isn't observed, so still doesn't exist. D'OH!!!me personally, I like the back radiation one the best. you know that something that has never been proven exists.
is this more like what you were expecting? lowered total OLR?
it comes from here CERES Satellite Data and Climate Sensitivity . short time period, large differences depending on temp dataset, long extrapolation. not really something I can put too much faith in. still better than climate models though.
That graph is not showing an actual measurement Ian...and it is not confined to the CO2 spectrum. and the decline it shows is based on attitude vs date....in addition..it is a derivation based on the assumption that the atmosphere is a gray body emitter/absorber when it is, in fact, semi transparent. In short...it is bullshit. There is no decrease of OLR in any band at the TOA.
the graph is not showing measurements???? hahahaha.
not confined to CO2 specific bands???? hahahaha. did it say it was?
pull up your own data and prove your point. I have to go on what I can find. Willis did a good job of showing that CERES correlates well with other datasets. I think it is useful, more for trend and range than it is for absolute numbers but still useful and probably the best we have.
I think it is pretty funny how you simply hand wave away any evidence you dont like, and replace it with something that you daydreamed about, like smart photons. obviously you are impervious to any logic or evidence.
I will say however, that if the sun is in a minimum cycle, then I would expect that OLR would decrease some. Cause I would expect the Incoming radiation to be down. so not unexpected in my world.
me personally, I like the back radiation one the best. you know that something that has never been proven exists.
