What the science says

[CrusaderFrank]

Smart photons

What were their scores on the Wonderlic test?

High enough to violate the laws of physics.
SSDD can explain further.

Going from cooler to warmer, as you propose, clearly violates Newton's Second Law

 

[Bonzi]

Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems to changing climate.

Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions.

Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which, together with adaptation, can limit climate change risks.

Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Projections of greenhouse gas emissions vary over a wide range, depending on both socio-economic development and climate policy.

Surface temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century under all assessed emission scenarios. It is very likely that heat waves will occur more often and last longer, and that extreme precipitation events will become more intense and frequent in many regions. The ocean will continue to warm and acidify, and global mean sea level to rise.

Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems. Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development.

Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries, even if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are stopped. The risks of abrupt or irreversible changes increase as the magnitude of the warming increases.

Adaptation and mitigation are complementary strategies for reducing and managing the risks of climate change. Substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades can reduce climate risks in the 21st century and beyond, increase prospects for effective adaptation, reduce the costs and challenges of mitigation in the longer term and contribute to climate-resilient pathways for sustainable development.

Effective decision-making to limit climate change and its effects can be informed by a wide range of analytical approaches for evaluating expected risks and benefits, recognizing the importance of governance, ethical dimensions, equity, value judgments, economic assessments and diverse perceptions and responses to risk and uncertainty.

Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence). Mitigation involves some level of co-benefits and of risks due to adverse side effects, but these risks do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits from near-term mitigation efforts.

More at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

How about we take all the money from the Space program (NASA) and use it to fix the planet we have now?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

still isn't observed, so still doesn't exist. D'OH!!!

BTW, when is it you're going to take one side or the other of your conclusions? Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up? Seems you have it covered there. But alas, you fail and so does the greenhouse hypothesis. D'OH squared.

still isn't observed,

The back radiation in that graph was observed.

Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up?

CO2 absorbs radiation from the ground. When it emits radiation, some goes up toward space, some goes down toward the surface. The net result is a slower loss of IR to space.

 

[Old Rocks]

Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems to changing climate.

Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions.

Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which, together with adaptation, can limit climate change risks.

Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Projections of greenhouse gas emissions vary over a wide range, depending on both socio-economic development and climate policy.

Surface temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century under all assessed emission scenarios. It is very likely that heat waves will occur more often and last longer, and that extreme precipitation events will become more intense and frequent in many regions. The ocean will continue to warm and acidify, and global mean sea level to rise.

Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems. Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development.

Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries, even if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are stopped. The risks of abrupt or irreversible changes increase as the magnitude of the warming increases.

Adaptation and mitigation are complementary strategies for reducing and managing the risks of climate change. Substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades can reduce climate risks in the 21st century and beyond, increase prospects for effective adaptation, reduce the costs and challenges of mitigation in the longer term and contribute to climate-resilient pathways for sustainable development.

Effective decision-making to limit climate change and its effects can be informed by a wide range of analytical approaches for evaluating expected risks and benefits, recognizing the importance of governance, ethical dimensions, equity, value judgments, economic assessments and diverse perceptions and responses to risk and uncertainty.

Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence). Mitigation involves some level of co-benefits and of risks due to adverse side effects, but these risks do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits from near-term mitigation efforts.

More at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

How about we take all the money from the Space program (NASA) and use it to fix the planet we have now?

Quite the dumbest thing posted in quite a while. It is through the space program that we can see what is happening here on Earth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Smart photons

What were their scores on the Wonderlic test?

High enough to violate the laws of physics.
SSDD can explain further.

Going from cooler to warmer, as you propose, clearly violates Newton's Second Law

Photons don't measure the temperature of their surroundings before "deciding to be emitted".
That would violate the laws of physics.

 

[Bonzi]

Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems to changing climate.

Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions.

Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which, together with adaptation, can limit climate change risks.

Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Projections of greenhouse gas emissions vary over a wide range, depending on both socio-economic development and climate policy.

Surface temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century under all assessed emission scenarios. It is very likely that heat waves will occur more often and last longer, and that extreme precipitation events will become more intense and frequent in many regions. The ocean will continue to warm and acidify, and global mean sea level to rise.

Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems. Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development.

Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries, even if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are stopped. The risks of abrupt or irreversible changes increase as the magnitude of the warming increases.

Adaptation and mitigation are complementary strategies for reducing and managing the risks of climate change. Substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades can reduce climate risks in the 21st century and beyond, increase prospects for effective adaptation, reduce the costs and challenges of mitigation in the longer term and contribute to climate-resilient pathways for sustainable development.

Effective decision-making to limit climate change and its effects can be informed by a wide range of analytical approaches for evaluating expected risks and benefits, recognizing the importance of governance, ethical dimensions, equity, value judgments, economic assessments and diverse perceptions and responses to risk and uncertainty.

Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence). Mitigation involves some level of co-benefits and of risks due to adverse side effects, but these risks do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits from near-term mitigation efforts.

More at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

How about we take all the money from the Space program (NASA) and use it to fix the planet we have now?

Quite the dumbest thing posted in quite a while. It is through the space program that we can see what is happening here on Earth.

Perhaps, but there is a lot of time spent looking at other planets.... maybe just cut back

 

[westwall]

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.

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.

still isn't observed, so still doesn't exist. D'OH!!!

BTW, when is it you're going to take one side or the other of your conclusions? Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up? Seems you have it covered there. But alas, you fail and so does the greenhouse hypothesis. D'OH squared.

still isn't observed,

The back radiation in that graph was observed.

Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up?

CO2 absorbs radiation from the ground. When it emits radiation, some goes up toward space, some goes down toward the surface. The net result is a slower loss of IR to space.

Slower. Yes, however, how does that increase warmth of the planet overall? In the desert when the Sun go's down the temp plummets. What is lacking? Humidity. The humidity is very low, and there is no large body of water to mitigate the cooling.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Smart photons

What were their scores on the Wonderlic test?

High enough to violate the laws of physics.
SSDD can explain further.

Going from cooler to warmer, as you propose, clearly violates Newton's Second Law

Photons don't measure the temperature of their surroundings before "deciding to be emitted".
That would violate the laws of physics.

If what you say is true, then photons have an only a 50% probability of radiating away from the Sun.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems to changing climate.

Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions.

Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which, together with adaptation, can limit climate change risks.

Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Projections of greenhouse gas emissions vary over a wide range, depending on both socio-economic development and climate policy.

Surface temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century under all assessed emission scenarios. It is very likely that heat waves will occur more often and last longer, and that extreme precipitation events will become more intense and frequent in many regions. The ocean will continue to warm and acidify, and global mean sea level to rise.

Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems. Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development.

Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries, even if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are stopped. The risks of abrupt or irreversible changes increase as the magnitude of the warming increases.

Adaptation and mitigation are complementary strategies for reducing and managing the risks of climate change. Substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades can reduce climate risks in the 21st century and beyond, increase prospects for effective adaptation, reduce the costs and challenges of mitigation in the longer term and contribute to climate-resilient pathways for sustainable development.

Effective decision-making to limit climate change and its effects can be informed by a wide range of analytical approaches for evaluating expected risks and benefits, recognizing the importance of governance, ethical dimensions, equity, value judgments, economic assessments and diverse perceptions and responses to risk and uncertainty.

Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence). Mitigation involves some level of co-benefits and of risks due to adverse side effects, but these risks do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits from near-term mitigation efforts.

More at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

How about we take all the money from the Space program (NASA) and use it to fix the planet we have now?

Quite the dumbest thing posted in quite a while. It is through the space program that we can see what is happening here on Earth.

Perhaps, but there is a lot of time spent looking at other planets.... maybe just cut back

We can cut out the funding for Global Warming "Research" since they only use that money to pay people for "Consensus" and Internet outreach

 

[jc456]

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.

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.

still isn't observed, so still doesn't exist. D'OH!!!

BTW, when is it you're going to take one side or the other of your conclusions? Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up? Seems you have it covered there. But alas, you fail and so does the greenhouse hypothesis. D'OH squared.

still isn't observed,

The back radiation in that graph was observed.

Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up?

CO2 absorbs radiation from the ground. When it emits radiation, some goes up toward space, some goes down toward the surface. The net result is a slower loss of IR to space.

nope, you stated awhile ago that CO2 heats up.

And, that is not observed back radiation. LOL.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

still isn't observed, so still doesn't exist. D'OH!!!

BTW, when is it you're going to take one side or the other of your conclusions? Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up? Seems you have it covered there. But alas, you fail and so does the greenhouse hypothesis. D'OH squared.

still isn't observed,

The back radiation in that graph was observed.

Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up?

CO2 absorbs radiation from the ground. When it emits radiation, some goes up toward space, some goes down toward the surface. The net result is a slower loss of IR to space.

Slower. Yes, however, how does that increase warmth of the planet overall? In the desert when the Sun go's down the temp plummets. What is lacking? Humidity. The humidity is very low, and there is no large body of water to mitigate the cooling.

Slower. Yes, however, how does that increase warmth of the planet overall?

Very quick loss of IR from the surface of the Moon when the Sun sets.
What is the difference?

 

[jc456]

me personally, I like the back radiation one the best. you know that something that has never been proven exists.

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.

still isn't observed, so still doesn't exist. D'OH!!!

BTW, when is it you're going to take one side or the other of your conclusions? Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up? Seems you have it covered there. But alas, you fail and so does the greenhouse hypothesis. D'OH squared.

still isn't observed,

The back radiation in that graph was observed.

Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up?

CO2 absorbs radiation from the ground. When it emits radiation, some goes up toward space, some goes down toward the surface. The net result is a slower loss of IR to space.

Slower. Yes, however, how does that increase warmth of the planet overall? In the desert when the Sun go's down the temp plummets. What is lacking? Humidity. The humidity is very low, and there is no large body of water to mitigate the cooling.

Slower. Yes, however, how does that increase warmth of the planet overall?

Very quick loss of IR from the surface of the Moon when the Sun sets.
What is the difference?

pressure system, oceans, convection, did I say oceans.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Smart photons

What were their scores on the Wonderlic test?

High enough to violate the laws of physics.
SSDD can explain further.

Going from cooler to warmer, as you propose, clearly violates Newton's Second Law

Photons don't measure the temperature of their surroundings before "deciding to be emitted".
That would violate the laws of physics.

If what you say is true, then photons have an only a 50% probability of radiating away from the Sun.

The high-energy photons (gamma rays) released in fusion reactions take indirect paths to the Sun's surface. According to current models, random scattering from free electrons in the solar radiative zone (the zone within 75% of the solar radius, where heat transfer is by radiation) sets the photon diffusion time scale (or "photon travel time") from the core to the outer edge of the radiative zone at about 170,000 years. From there they cross into the convective zone (the remaining 25% of distance from the Sun's center), where the dominant transfer process changes to convection, and the speed at which heat moves outward becomes considerably faster.[12]

Solar core - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

still isn't observed, so still doesn't exist. D'OH!!!

BTW, when is it you're going to take one side or the other of your conclusions? Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up? Seems you have it covered there. But alas, you fail and so does the greenhouse hypothesis. D'OH squared.

still isn't observed,

The back radiation in that graph was observed.

Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up?

CO2 absorbs radiation from the ground. When it emits radiation, some goes up toward space, some goes down toward the surface. The net result is a slower loss of IR to space.

nope, you stated awhile ago that CO2 heats up.

And, that is not observed back radiation. LOL.

nope, you stated awhile ago that CO2 heats up.

When a photon is absorbed by CO2, the CO2 heats up.

And, that is not observed back radiation.

The measured incoming long wave radiation after the sun sets is observed.

 

[jc456]

me personally, I like the back radiation one the best. you know that something that has never been proven exists.

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.

still isn't observed, so still doesn't exist. D'OH!!!

BTW, when is it you're going to take one side or the other of your conclusions? Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up? Seems you have it covered there. But alas, you fail and so does the greenhouse hypothesis. D'OH squared.

still isn't observed,

The back radiation in that graph was observed.

Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up?

CO2 absorbs radiation from the ground. When it emits radiation, some goes up toward space, some goes down toward the surface. The net result is a slower loss of IR to space.

nope, you stated awhile ago that CO2 heats up.

And, that is not observed back radiation. LOL.

nope, you stated awhile ago that CO2 heats up.

When a photon is absorbed by CO2, the CO2 heats up.

And, that is not observed back radiation.

The measured incoming long wave radiation after the sun sets is observed.

The measured incoming long wave radiation after the sun sets is observed
no it isn't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

me personally, I like the back radiation one the best. you know that something that has never been proven exists.

still isn't observed, so still doesn't exist. D'OH!!!

BTW, when is it you're going to take one side or the other of your conclusions? Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up? Seems you have it covered there. But alas, you fail and so does the greenhouse hypothesis. D'OH squared.

still isn't observed,

The back radiation in that graph was observed.

Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up?

CO2 absorbs radiation from the ground. When it emits radiation, some goes up toward space, some goes down toward the surface. The net result is a slower loss of IR to space.

Slower. Yes, however, how does that increase warmth of the planet overall? In the desert when the Sun go's down the temp plummets. What is lacking? Humidity. The humidity is very low, and there is no large body of water to mitigate the cooling.

Slower. Yes, however, how does that increase warmth of the planet overall?

Very quick loss of IR from the surface of the Moon when the Sun sets.
What is the difference?

pressure system, oceans, convection, did I say oceans.

Without an atmosphere, would an ocean on the Moon slow the cooling of the surface?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

me personally, I like the back radiation one the best. you know that something that has never been proven exists.

still isn't observed, so still doesn't exist. D'OH!!!

BTW, when is it you're going to take one side or the other of your conclusions? Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up? Seems you have it covered there. But alas, you fail and so does the greenhouse hypothesis. D'OH squared.

still isn't observed,

The back radiation in that graph was observed.

Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up?

CO2 absorbs radiation from the ground. When it emits radiation, some goes up toward space, some goes down toward the surface. The net result is a slower loss of IR to space.

nope, you stated awhile ago that CO2 heats up.

And, that is not observed back radiation. LOL.

nope, you stated awhile ago that CO2 heats up.

When a photon is absorbed by CO2, the CO2 heats up.

And, that is not observed back radiation.

The measured incoming long wave radiation after the sun sets is observed.

The measured incoming long wave radiation after the sun sets is observed
no it isn't.

Your inability to read the chart doesn't change the facts.

 

[jc456]

still isn't observed, so still doesn't exist. D'OH!!!

BTW, when is it you're going to take one side or the other of your conclusions? Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up? Seems you have it covered there. But alas, you fail and so does the greenhouse hypothesis. D'OH squared.

still isn't observed,

The back radiation in that graph was observed.

Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up?

CO2 absorbs radiation from the ground. When it emits radiation, some goes up toward space, some goes down toward the surface. The net result is a slower loss of IR to space.

Slower. Yes, however, how does that increase warmth of the planet overall? In the desert when the Sun go's down the temp plummets. What is lacking? Humidity. The humidity is very low, and there is no large body of water to mitigate the cooling.

Slower. Yes, however, how does that increase warmth of the planet overall?

Very quick loss of IR from the surface of the Moon when the Sun sets.
What is the difference?

pressure system, oceans, convection, did I say oceans.

Without an atmosphere, would an ocean on the Moon slow the cooling of the surface?

If there was an ocean, there'd be stored heat, evaporation, clouds forming rain, all sorts of weather. I don't know of any need for CO2. You still haven't produced that observed piece yet.

 

[westwall]

still isn't observed, so still doesn't exist. D'OH!!!

BTW, when is it you're going to take one side or the other of your conclusions? Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up? Seems you have it covered there. But alas, you fail and so does the greenhouse hypothesis. D'OH squared.

still isn't observed,

The back radiation in that graph was observed.

Is it it radiates back or it slows down the release up?

CO2 absorbs radiation from the ground. When it emits radiation, some goes up toward space, some goes down toward the surface. The net result is a slower loss of IR to space.

Slower. Yes, however, how does that increase warmth of the planet overall? In the desert when the Sun go's down the temp plummets. What is lacking? Humidity. The humidity is very low, and there is no large body of water to mitigate the cooling.

Slower. Yes, however, how does that increase warmth of the planet overall?

Very quick loss of IR from the surface of the Moon when the Sun sets.
What is the difference?

pressure system, oceans, convection, did I say oceans.

Without an atmosphere, would an ocean on the Moon slow the cooling of the surface?

Without an atmosphere the ocean would boil off into space.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What were their scores on the Wonderlic test?

High enough to violate the laws of physics.
SSDD can explain further.

Going from cooler to warmer, as you propose, clearly violates Newton's Second Law

Photons don't measure the temperature of their surroundings before "deciding to be emitted".
That would violate the laws of physics.

If what you say is true, then photons have an only a 50% probability of radiating away from the Sun.

The high-energy photons (gamma rays) released in fusion reactions take indirect paths to the Sun's surface. According to current models, random scattering from free electrons in the solar radiative zone (the zone within 75% of the solar radius, where heat transfer is by radiation) sets the photon diffusion time scale (or "photon travel time") from the core to the outer edge of the radiative zone at about 170,000 years. From there they cross into the convective zone (the remaining 25% of distance from the Sun's center), where the dominant transfer process changes to convection, and the speed at which heat moves outward becomes considerably faster.[12]

Solar core - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What point were you trying to make?