AGWCult now threatening "Deniers"

[flacaltenn]

This is an hilarious thread! Could gslack be any dumber? And I see Old Rocks still doesn't understand the difference between warm and warming.

Hey flac- I have a more serious question for you. Why do you think the speed of the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere affects the absorption/emission spectra? Blackbody radiation is a function of the average kinetic motion of all the molecules (temperature) but specific ab/em is based on the molecule itself. Other than slight momentum transferred (entropy is always hiding in the background) specific transfers lose no energy and 'slightly linger wavelenths' are not an option.

Missed your post Ian.. Some troll recently uncovered it for me..

I don't know that it affect the spectra of emission/abs. But speed is related to the Kelvin Temp of the gas molecules, and thus emission rates. Thus it's the other way around perhaps.. A hotter gas travels faster and emits MORE than a cooler gas.

If there's any shift in spectra -- it's tiny due to Doppler of motion and negligable -- but maybe I'm overlooking something.

BlackBody doesn't apply to a gas molecule, If it DID --- a shift in Kelvin Temp WOULD shift the emission/abs spectra slightly as shown in the traditional graphs. For a gas -- those lines of em/abs are fixed by atomic alignment. (I think)..

All objects emit blackbody radfiation. Even a GHG free atmosphere would warm the surface. Should we split hairs by considering BB radiation to be a product of conduction? Slightly inelastic collisions that produce radiation according to the kinetic speed of the participants?

Anyways, the surface absorbs all BB radiation directed at it from the atmosphere but the reverse is not true. GHGs increase the amount of surface BB radiation absorbed, and if a collision occurs with an excited molecule then that energy is added to the thermal total. Otherwise it gets spit out inn a random direction, some escaping and some returning to the surface.

We know by experiment that the 15 IR is absorbed to extinction in roughly ten meters. I would like to know how quickly it gets totally thermalized. I cannot see the mechanism by which runaway warming would occur. The eight percent of surface BB radiation that is affected by CO2 is already stopped within the first few tens of meters. Any further dispersion would be superfluous. The bottleneck is near-surface and countered by water transporting the energy to the cloud tops where air density negates much of the ability of CO2 to stop radiation produced by the releaase of latent heat.

Just sayin'.

I'm not doubting that gases have the ability to radiate.. It's just that RIGOROUSLY -- they are not BBodies.. In fact, rigorously, the earth is a GREY body because it reflects some of the incident radiation.. In fact most diatomic gases are completely transparent to the IR emission band of the Earth.

If the 15 IR has such a short pathway -- must be due to water vapor, no? And that is a variable that's hard to isolate.. I doubt CO2 alone could extinguish that frequency at 50 meters. And just because it's been thermalized at a short distance, doesn't mean it isn't acting as an insulator to "re-radiate" at 15 IR further up into the atmos.

We know that there is only about one and half bands in the CO2 emission spectra that ISN'T covered by water vapor. In essence --- CO2 becomes the "free safety" of the defense.. The last man between that emission band and the dark of space. So you STILL have to calculate the amount of stopping power at those bands NOT covered by water vapor. (although they are at higher frequencies where Earth BBody emission goes down.. )

I'm doubting the few "tens of meters" number because I glanced at the absorpt. charts and the 15u IR band for CO2 is about 1/2 covered by water vapor.

But you are wise to question the thermal absorption power of a gas that has only 4 or 5 effective frequencies of absorption..

Tell me -- is the 8% the calculated amount of radiation CAUGHT by CO2 over the entire emission spectra of the Earth Surface? Because I could easily believe it's that low and that more of the Greenhouse is water vapor than has been estimated.

BUT IN THAT CASE --- the 8% number already INCLUDES all of the absorption from CO2..

 

[IanC]

Missed your post Ian.. Some troll recently uncovered it for me..

I don't know that it affect the spectra of emission/abs. But speed is related to the Kelvin Temp of the gas molecules, and thus emission rates. Thus it's the other way around perhaps.. A hotter gas travels faster and emits MORE than a cooler gas.

If there's any shift in spectra -- it's tiny due to Doppler of motion and negligable -- but maybe I'm overlooking something.

BlackBody doesn't apply to a gas molecule, If it DID --- a shift in Kelvin Temp WOULD shift the emission/abs spectra slightly as shown in the traditional graphs. For a gas -- those lines of em/abs are fixed by atomic alignment. (I think)..

All objects emit blackbody radfiation. Even a GHG free atmosphere would warm the surface. Should we split hairs by considering BB radiation to be a product of conduction? Slightly inelastic collisions that produce radiation according to the kinetic speed of the participants?

Anyways, the surface absorbs all BB radiation directed at it from the atmosphere but the reverse is not true. GHGs increase the amount of surface BB radiation absorbed, and if a collision occurs with an excited molecule then that energy is added to the thermal total. Otherwise it gets spit out inn a random direction, some escaping and some returning to the surface.

We know by experiment that the 15 IR is absorbed to extinction in roughly ten meters. I would like to know how quickly it gets totally thermalized. I cannot see the mechanism by which runaway warming would occur. The eight percent of surface BB radiation that is affected by CO2 is already stopped within the first few tens of meters. Any further dispersion would be superfluous. The bottleneck is near-surface and countered by water transporting the energy to the cloud tops where air density negates much of the ability of CO2 to stop radiation produced by the releaase of latent heat.

Just sayin'.

I'm not doubting that gases have the ability to radiate.. It's just that RIGOROUSLY -- they are not BBodies.. In fact, rigorously, the earth is a GREY body because it reflects some of the incident radiation.. In fact most diatomic gases are completely transparent to the IR emission band of the Earth.

If the 15 IR has such a short pathway -- must be due to water vapor, no? And that is a variable that's hard to isolate.. I doubt CO2 alone could extinguish that frequency at 50 meters. And just because it's been thermalized at a short distance, doesn't mean it isn't acting as an insulator to "re-radiate" at 15 IR further up into the atmos.

We know that there is only about one and half bands in the CO2 emission spectra that ISN'T covered by water vapor. In essence --- CO2 becomes the "free safety" of the defense.. The last man between that emission band and the dark of space. So you STILL have to calculate the amount of stopping power at those bands NOT covered by water vapor. (although they are at higher frequencies where Earth BBody emission goes down.. )

I'm doubting the few "tens of meters" number because I glanced at the absorpt. charts and the 15u IR band for CO2 is about 1/2 covered by water vapor.

But you are wise to question the thermal absorption power of a gas that has only 4 or 5 effective frequencies of absorption..

Tell me -- is the 8% the calculated amount of radiation CAUGHT by CO2 over the entire emission spectra of the Earth Surface? Because I could easily believe it's that low and that more of the Greenhouse is water vapor than has been estimated.

BUT IN THAT CASE --- the 8% number already INCLUDES all of the absorption from CO2..

Rigorous? I have no problem using the term greybody instead. I was using BB as shorthand to describe a type of radiation so that people would recognize it. Even the Sun isn't a perfect blackbody.

Really I was trying to get a point across that radiation from kinetic interactions is more variable than the standard spectra of individual molecules or elements.

I believe CO2 has the 15 IR band mostly to itself, that is why so much focus is put on it. Water is much more spread out, that is why it is such a strong GHG even though it only has two bonds.

 

[gslack]

Ya know -- if you'd stop the personal attacks and thought MORE about what was being said.. You might not be so confused.. You just defined "backradiation" above (where I added the bolding).. The downdwelling IR DOES NOT overcome the net flow up... It just REDUCES IT.. It is the radiant EM equivalent of adding insulation.. Insulation doesn't create energy does it???

But besides rejecting GreenHouse theory in Totalatity without a good reason, you're also confused by the different forms of heat flow.. Insulation reduces the NET COOLING of a classical CONDUCTIVE thermal energy flow.. Bidirectional exchange of Photons -- reduces the net COOLING of an ELECTROMAGNETIC (IR) energy flow.. Two different modes of heating. Two different set of rules in the Thermo textbooks..

No warming of the surface results from bidirectional or backradiation.. Just more insulation.
The SUN pumps NEW energy into the system and the loss rate is reduced.

Just like your house insulation doesn't create energy, your furnace does..
Go add some insulation and take the thermostat off the wall and let the furnace do what it did BEFORE you added the insulation.
The house will warm. That's from CONDUCTIVE heating rules. Backradiation derives from Elect.Mag. heating rules.

If I have to reduce this anymore for you -- you'll be quoting my words and denying that I said them..



I think I will call it Net Flow because that's the proper Thermo terminology.. Sorry that makes you want to attack me. You're barely tolerable as a human being and USELESS as a voice who THINKS they are harming AGW theory a whit. You are a DENIER.. Of the worst sort... And rejecting the basics of Atmospheric Physics gives the AGW side a HUGE excuse to marginalize any skeptics..

I have no fear of you or of proper scientific debate.. Ever...

Simpler than all that simpleton.. The rules for Elect.Mag. thermal exchange simply say that the NET FLUX is the difference of the photon flow. What is in the "field of the view" of the emitter gets absorbed by the absorber. Just simply ray-tracing like for lighting calculations. It actually IS LIGHT -- you just can't see it.. THUS the net flow is a simple subtraction of the EM streams aimed at each other.



In the case of house insulation, it works only on CONDUCTIVE thermal flows. It's MATERIAL PROPERTIES that determine a conductive insulator.. Heating from EM IR is NOT conductive heat transfer and has different rules for propagation and emission/absorption. That's the crux of why your head is so fucked up.. You're not getting the difference in the rules for heat transfer via CONDUCTION and heat transfer via RADIATION.. The sun transfer heat thru a PERFECT VACUUM. The best insulator in the universe. IT IS LIGHT that we are talking about in back-radiation --- NOT heat energy..

So with a RADIATIVE INSULATOR --- it gets that property from the amount of photons it can muster to throw BACK at the source. Raise it's temperature a bit and it can throw back a bit more. THUS the 2nd law remains intact. NET FLOW is still from photons at the hotter source.

So does backradiation as cited by climate science exist or not? Is it re-radiating some of the same energy back to it's warmer source or not? Is it that, or is it now as you claim a simple insulator slowing heat loss sans any extra warming?

You called radiation of all things evidence of climate science backradiation, you now call insulating evidence of backradiation, yet all the while you describe nothing in either scenario regarding backradiation... DO you even know what it is you are defending anymore? Or do i sense a quiet backpeddle now?

Tell you what, you get your climate science ducks in order, and get your theory straight, and then come and try totalk down to people on it...

You're as bad as the other idiots who in their desire to "get me" can't be bothered to read their own charts.. LOL, so you want to explain how deviation from a mean gathered from 61-90, represents a record for 180 years?

ROFL..

No backpeddle.. No inconsistency in over 200 fruitless posts to your brain... My ducks are in a row and have been for our entire pointless discussion.. BIDIRECTIONAL radiation is how Electro.Mag. IR heating works. Some folks coined the term "backradiation" to apply to the "weaker stream" coming from the cooler object. It describes the simple math to compute a photon flow between objects that uses RADIATIVE energy --- not CONDUCTIVE thermal flow..

You inability to comment DIRECTLY on statements like the last one I made above is why you're flailing and assailing me.. You're frustrated.. You should be..

Tell me what you know about RADIATIVE heat transfer WITHOUT any reference to rules for CONDUCTIVE thermal transfer... If you're not willing to FOCUS on what I'm telling you -- we're done..

LOL, what nonsense...

First off, you stood there insulting me in your first post to me, and then cry because you get it back????

You insult people nonstop, and then cry when you get insulted??

Grow a thicker skin or stop insulting people it's as simple as that...

Now onto your BS "science according to whatever you think fits."

"No warming of the surface results from bidirectional or backradiation.. Just more insulation."

LOL yeah I know I told you that.. You spent posts claiming it was because radiation from the cooler atmosphere warms the surface.. Remember? So which is it this time? You call insulation backraidiation now? Jesus man is everything back radiation with you?

SIMPLE, WTF do you call backradiation? Seriously what is it by your standard and what exacxtly does it do or not do... IF you come abck with another SOD inspired "all things radiate so all radiation is backradiation in certain circumstances" garbage post I'm going to laugh at you.. Seriously pick a stance on it and stick with it..

"BIDIRECTIONAL radiation is how Electro.Mag. IR heating works."

LOL, You are swapping energy for heat again, as well as making things up...

Radiation properties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Radiation properties

Conduction and convection are heat transfer processes that require the presence of a medium.[1] Radiation heat transfer is characteristically different from the other two in which it does not require a medium and, in fact it reaches maximum efficiency in a vacuum. Electromagnetic radiation has some proper characteristics depending on the frequency and wavelengths of the radiation. The phenomenon of radiation is not yet fully understood. Two theories have been used to explain radiation; however neither of them is perfectly satisfactory.
First, the earlier theory which originated from the concept of a hypothetical medium referred as ether. Ether supposedly fills all evacuated or non evacuated spaces. The transmission of light or of radiant heat are allowed by the propagation of electromagnetic waves in the ether.[1] Electromagnetic waves have similar characteristics to television and radio broadcasting waves they only differ in wavelength.[2] All electromagnetic waves travel at the same speed; therefore, shorter wavelengths are associated with high frequencies. Since every body or fluid is submerged in the ether, due to the vibration of the molecules, any body or fluid can potentially initiate an electromagnetic wave. All bodies generate and receive electromagnetic waves at the expense of its stored energy [2] The second theory of radiation is best known as the quantum theory and was first offered by Max Planck in 1900.[1] According to this theory, energy emitted by a radiator is not continuous but is in the form of quanta. Planck claimed that quantities had different sizes and frequencies of vibration similarly to the wave theory.[3] The energy E is found by the expression E = hν, where h is the Plank's constant and ν is the frequency. Higher frequencies are originated by high temperatures and create an increase of energy in the quantum. The propagation of electromagnetic waves of all wavelengths is often referred as "radiation" thermal radiation is constrained to the visible and infrared regions. However, the term radiation refers to thermal radiation only. For engineering purposes, it may be stated that thermal radiation is a form of electromagnetic radiation which varies on the nature of a surface and its temperature.[1] Radiation waves may travel in unusual patterns compare to conduction heat flow. Radiation allows waves to travel from a heated body through a cold nonabsorbing or partially absorbing medium and reach a warmer body again.[1] This is the case of the radiation waves that travel from the sun to the earth.

You are talking crap now plain and simple... Just because something radiates doesn't mean it can warm it's own heat source further. Backraidaition can't do it, insulation can't do it, and neither can repeating yourself endlessly using different words.. AND NOBODY BUT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS OR INTERNET HUCKSTERS are claiming it can..

"You inability to comment DIRECTLY on statements like the last one I made above is why you're flailing and assailing me.. You're frustrated.. You should be.. "

oh I did comment directly, and you repeat the same nonsense everytime.. And the noone is assailing you drama queen, you insulted me, I insulted back.. You have been condescending from the start, so so spare me the "you hurt my feelings" crap now...

"Tell me what you know about RADIATIVE heat transfer WITHOUT any reference to rules for CONDUCTIVE thermal transfer... If you're not willing to FOCUS on what I'm telling you -- we're done.."[/B]

LOL, stop trying to grandstand, I don't care how smart you think you are, or how fast you can google, you have shown NO understanding of what your claim means or hell even what it is... Don't dictate to me, or tell me what I must do.. Don't like me? Makes it mutual.. But don't insult and talk down to me and then cry because I'm unkind..

 

[gslack]

This is an hilarious thread! Could gslack be any dumber? And I see Old Rocks still doesn't understand the difference between warm and warming.

Hey flac- I have a more serious question for you. Why do you think the speed of the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere affects the absorption/emission spectra? Blackbody radiation is a function of the average kinetic motion of all the molecules (temperature) but specific ab/em is based on the molecule itself. Other than slight momentum transferred (entropy is always hiding in the background) specific transfers lose no energy and 'slightly linger wavelenths' are not an option.

And the fact you didn't read the graph is not surprising being the cowardly little punk you are...

Again, when you grow a spine talk to me...

I shouldn't feed the trolls but....

You are retarded. It doesn't matter what reference period you use to calibrate the anomalies. It only affects the offset and SDs, not the rank ordering.

The graph was presented in 2010 before they had the full year of data. Bad practice yes, but not the trick you think it is. At least they fully acknowledged what they were doing, unlike many other truncations and cherrypicking that can be found in climate science.

LOL, they called it them records for the last 180 or so years, and based that on deviation from a 30 year mean.. Meaning it's only a record when compared to the mean between 61 and 90.. YOU IDIOT.....

ROFL, don't blink Ian, yes you did just try and stand your ground on an obvious screw up for pride sake... Don't let pride make you a moron too... It's a bogus claim created to give a false impression, you know it, I know it.. A record for 180 years would be a deviation from that 180 year mean, or god forbid an actual record like highest or lowest temp for that day in time..

It's a BS chart to give a false impression, and the fact you defend it confirms what I said about you previously...

 

[flacaltenn]

Simpler than all that simpleton.. The rules for Elect.Mag. thermal exchange simply say that the NET FLUX is the difference of the photon flow. What is in the "field of the view" of the emitter gets absorbed by the absorber. Just simply ray-tracing like for lighting calculations. It actually IS LIGHT -- you just can't see it.. THUS the net flow is a simple subtraction of the EM streams aimed at each other.



In the case of house insulation, it works only on CONDUCTIVE thermal flows. It's MATERIAL PROPERTIES that determine a conductive insulator.. Heating from EM IR is NOT conductive heat transfer and has different rules for propagation and emission/absorption. That's the crux of why your head is so fucked up.. You're not getting the difference in the rules for heat transfer via CONDUCTION and heat transfer via RADIATION.. The sun transfer heat thru a PERFECT VACUUM. The best insulator in the universe. IT IS LIGHT that we are talking about in back-radiation --- NOT heat energy..

So with a RADIATIVE INSULATOR --- it gets that property from the amount of photons it can muster to throw BACK at the source. Raise it's temperature a bit and it can throw back a bit more. THUS the 2nd law remains intact. NET FLOW is still from photons at the hotter source.



No backpeddle.. No inconsistency in over 200 fruitless posts to your brain... My ducks are in a row and have been for our entire pointless discussion.. BIDIRECTIONAL radiation is how Electro.Mag. IR heating works. Some folks coined the term "backradiation" to apply to the "weaker stream" coming from the cooler object. It describes the simple math to compute a photon flow between objects that uses RADIATIVE energy --- not CONDUCTIVE thermal flow..

You inability to comment DIRECTLY on statements like the last one I made above is why you're flailing and assailing me.. You're frustrated.. You should be..

Tell me what you know about RADIATIVE heat transfer WITHOUT any reference to rules for CONDUCTIVE thermal transfer... If you're not willing to FOCUS on what I'm telling you -- we're done..

LOL, what nonsense...

First off, you stood there insulting me in your first post to me, and then cry because you get it back????

You insult people nonstop, and then cry when you get insulted??

Grow a thicker skin or stop insulting people it's as simple as that...

Now onto your BS "science according to whatever you think fits."

"No warming of the surface results from bidirectional or backradiation.. Just more insulation."

LOL yeah I know I told you that.. You spent posts claiming it was because radiation from the cooler atmosphere warms the surface.. Remember? So which is it this time? You call insulation backraidiation now? Jesus man is everything back radiation with you?

SIMPLE, WTF do you call backradiation? Seriously what is it by your standard and what exacxtly does it do or not do... IF you come abck with another SOD inspired "all things radiate so all radiation is backradiation in certain circumstances" garbage post I'm going to laugh at you.. Seriously pick a stance on it and stick with it..

"BIDIRECTIONAL radiation is how Electro.Mag. IR heating works."

LOL, You are swapping energy for heat again, as well as making things up...

Radiation properties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Radiation properties

Conduction and convection are heat transfer processes that require the presence of a medium.[1] Radiation heat transfer is characteristically different from the other two in which it does not require a medium and, in fact it reaches maximum efficiency in a vacuum. Electromagnetic radiation has some proper characteristics depending on the frequency and wavelengths of the radiation. The phenomenon of radiation is not yet fully understood. Two theories have been used to explain radiation; however neither of them is perfectly satisfactory.
First, the earlier theory which originated from the concept of a hypothetical medium referred as ether. Ether supposedly fills all evacuated or non evacuated spaces. The transmission of light or of radiant heat are allowed by the propagation of electromagnetic waves in the ether.[1] Electromagnetic waves have similar characteristics to television and radio broadcasting waves they only differ in wavelength.[2] All electromagnetic waves travel at the same speed; therefore, shorter wavelengths are associated with high frequencies. Since every body or fluid is submerged in the ether, due to the vibration of the molecules, any body or fluid can potentially initiate an electromagnetic wave. All bodies generate and receive electromagnetic waves at the expense of its stored energy [2] The second theory of radiation is best known as the quantum theory and was first offered by Max Planck in 1900.[1] According to this theory, energy emitted by a radiator is not continuous but is in the form of quanta. Planck claimed that quantities had different sizes and frequencies of vibration similarly to the wave theory.[3] The energy E is found by the expression E = hν, where h is the Plank's constant and ν is the frequency. Higher frequencies are originated by high temperatures and create an increase of energy in the quantum. The propagation of electromagnetic waves of all wavelengths is often referred as "radiation" thermal radiation is constrained to the visible and infrared regions. However, the term radiation refers to thermal radiation only. For engineering purposes, it may be stated that thermal radiation is a form of electromagnetic radiation which varies on the nature of a surface and its temperature.[1] Radiation waves may travel in unusual patterns compare to conduction heat flow. Radiation allows waves to travel from a heated body through a cold nonabsorbing or partially absorbing medium and reach a warmer body again.[1] This is the case of the radiation waves that travel from the sun to the earth.

You are talking crap now plain and simple... Just because something radiates doesn't mean it can warm it's own heat source further. Backraidaition can't do it, insulation can't do it, and neither can repeating yourself endlessly using different words.. AND NOBODY BUT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS OR INTERNET HUCKSTERS are claiming it can..

"You inability to comment DIRECTLY on statements like the last one I made above is why you're flailing and assailing me.. You're frustrated.. You should be.. "

oh I did comment directly, and you repeat the same nonsense everytime.. And the noone is assailing you drama queen, you insulted me, I insulted back.. You have been condescending from the start, so so spare me the "you hurt my feelings" crap now...

"Tell me what you know about RADIATIVE heat transfer WITHOUT any reference to rules for CONDUCTIVE thermal transfer... If you're not willing to FOCUS on what I'm telling you -- we're done.."[/B]

LOL, stop trying to grandstand, I don't care how smart you think you are, or how fast you can google, you have shown NO understanding of what your claim means or hell even what it is... Don't dictate to me, or tell me what I must do.. Don't like me? Makes it mutual.. But don't insult and talk down to me and then cry because I'm unkind..

You've just given me a new footer line for all to see..

You are swapping energy for heat again ...... --- GSlack wisdom on thermodynamics.

About the stupidest thing you've said in 20 pages..
Need to clear some clutter out of my life.. Bye Bye random noise... No more GSlack...

General note for anyone following this "debate".. Notice how Mr Science underlined every extraneous factoid in the Wiki quote except this one line...

Radiation waves may travel in unusual patterns compare to conduction heat flow.

He's dishonest AND obnoxious. And he didn't want to ponder what that line might mean... Just knew it was bad for his stupid act.


No crying.. just a simple flick of a button and you are GONE.. How's it feel to be only the 2nd poster on my Ignore List after PMZ??? That's about where you rank.. No need to reply -- I can't hear you...

 

[IanC]

And the fact you didn't read the graph is not surprising being the cowardly little punk you are...

Again, when you grow a spine talk to me...

I shouldn't feed the trolls but....

You are retarded. It doesn't matter what reference period you use to calibrate the anomalies. It only affects the offset and SDs, not the rank ordering.

The graph was presented in 2010 before they had the full year of data. Bad practice yes, but not the trick you think it is. At least they fully acknowledged what they were doing, unlike many other truncations and cherrypicking that can be found in climate science.

LOL, they called it them records for the last 180 or so years, and based that on deviation from a 30 year mean.. Meaning it's only a record when compared to the mean between 61 and 90.. YOU IDIOT.....

ROFL, don't blink Ian, yes you did just try and stand your ground on an obvious screw up for pride sake... Don't let pride make you a moron too... It's a bogus claim created to give a false impression, you know it, I know it.. A record for 180 years would be a deviation from that 180 year mean, or god forbid an actual record like highest or lowest temp for that day in time..

It's a BS chart to give a false impression, and the fact you defend it confirms what I said about you previously...

Like I said, you are retarded. Show us an example of how using a different base period changes the rank ordering of the yearly data.

You fixate on meaningless things. Why don't you focus on real problems? Say, why does the rank order from 1999 not agree with the rank order from 2012, for years included in both datasets?

 

[flacaltenn]

You dumb ass. The absorption of longwave outgoing IR by the GHGs means that when a photon is emitted, it is non-directional. So what was 100% outgoing is now 50% incoming.

Of course it hasn't warmed in the last 15 years. That is why 12 of the 15 hottest years on record happened during those years.

Oh, but you are wrong. That experiment is being done right now. And we are seeing the results right here;

Climate change: The hottest years on record | The Economist

LOL, best to use a source that relies on a proper standard for record socks

Saw this on your chart from your link..

the hottest years on record, deviation from the 1961-90 global average temperature, C

You non-reading BS artist... What kind of record is based on data only from 1960 till 1990? It's a BS record made to give a false impression just as most of the crap from the warmer side...

And you wonder why you keep losing believers...

Wow you are so dumb

Indeed.. Using ANY series average from the record as a baseline number would give the same results. Don't try to explain that to the trolls. BUT --- you should ask yourself WHY they feel the need to USE a deviation rather than give RAW temperature numbers...

Anyone??

It's because the deviations hide the immensely small changes in temp. that accomplished the records.. And the public has no idea how to compare the "Deviations" to actual temperatures.

For instance.. The top ten years were all within 0.12degC of each other. Indicating that the trend that COULD exist is probably less than 1.2degC/Century.. Folks wouldn't even blink over that number..

OR --- you could say that yearly records 6 thru 10 were all within 0.04degC of each other.

How much panic would you install by showing years 7 and 8 at 22.15degC were hotter than years 9 and 10 at 22.11degC ??

Again.. It's a global average to SELL THE CRISIS.. Make it one number for the entire world so that even math/science disabled geniuses like our trolls might understand it. And then DISGUISE that number so that people can't relate to the MAGNITUDE and IMPORTANCE of these records..

 

[gslack]

LOL, what nonsense...

First off, you stood there insulting me in your first post to me, and then cry because you get it back????

You insult people nonstop, and then cry when you get insulted??

Grow a thicker skin or stop insulting people it's as simple as that...

Now onto your BS "science according to whatever you think fits."

"No warming of the surface results from bidirectional or backradiation.. Just more insulation."

LOL yeah I know I told you that.. You spent posts claiming it was because radiation from the cooler atmosphere warms the surface.. Remember? So which is it this time? You call insulation backraidiation now? Jesus man is everything back radiation with you?

SIMPLE, WTF do you call backradiation? Seriously what is it by your standard and what exacxtly does it do or not do... IF you come abck with another SOD inspired "all things radiate so all radiation is backradiation in certain circumstances" garbage post I'm going to laugh at you.. Seriously pick a stance on it and stick with it..

"BIDIRECTIONAL radiation is how Electro.Mag. IR heating works."

LOL, You are swapping energy for heat again, as well as making things up...

Radiation properties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



You are talking crap now plain and simple... Just because something radiates doesn't mean it can warm it's own heat source further. Backraidaition can't do it, insulation can't do it, and neither can repeating yourself endlessly using different words.. AND NOBODY BUT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS OR INTERNET HUCKSTERS are claiming it can..

"You inability to comment DIRECTLY on statements like the last one I made above is why you're flailing and assailing me.. You're frustrated.. You should be.. "

oh I did comment directly, and you repeat the same nonsense everytime.. And the noone is assailing you drama queen, you insulted me, I insulted back.. You have been condescending from the start, so so spare me the "you hurt my feelings" crap now...

"Tell me what you know about RADIATIVE heat transfer WITHOUT any reference to rules for CONDUCTIVE thermal transfer... If you're not willing to FOCUS on what I'm telling you -- we're done.."[/B]

LOL, stop trying to grandstand, I don't care how smart you think you are, or how fast you can google, you have shown NO understanding of what your claim means or hell even what it is... Don't dictate to me, or tell me what I must do.. Don't like me? Makes it mutual.. But don't insult and talk down to me and then cry because I'm unkind..

You've just given me a new footer line for all to see..



About the stupidest thing you've said in 20 pages..
Need to clear some clutter out of my life.. Bye Bye random noise... No more GSlack...

General note for anyone following this "debate".. Notice how Mr Science underlined every extraneous factoid in the Wiki quote except this one line...

Radiation waves may travel in unusual patterns compare to conduction heat flow.

He's dishonest AND obnoxious. And he didn't want to ponder what that line might mean... Just knew it was bad for his stupid act.


No crying.. just a simple flick of a button and you are GONE.. How's it feel to be only the 2nd poster on my Ignore List after PMZ??? That's about where you rank.. No need to reply -- I can't hear you...

So then you assume all energy is heat and are one and the same?

ROFL, okay now we know your problem is ignorance and not just being a pig headed arrogant ass...

Heat is ONE WAY energy can manifest dumbass.. One reason you cannot consider all energy, simply heat, is it cost some energy to create that heat... If you make a heat engine is it 100% efficient? NO? Why not if energy is indeed simply heat?

You imbecile...Since you won't take my word for it...

Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Energy

In physics, energy is a conserved extensive property of a physical system, which cannot be observed directly but can be calculated from its state. Energy is of central importance in physics. It is impossible to give a comprehensive definition of energy because of the many forms it may take, but the most common definition is that it is the capacity of a system to perform work. The definition of work in physics is the movement of a force through a distance, and energy is measured in the same units as work. If a person pushes an object x meters against an opposing force of F newtons, Fx joules (newton-meters) of work has been done on the object; the person's body has lost Fx joules of energy, and the object has gained Fx joules of energy. The SI unit of energy is the joule (J) (equivalent to a newton-meter or a watt-second); the CGS unit is the erg, and the Imperial unit is the foot pound. Other energy units such as the electron volt, calorie, BTU, and kilowatt-hour (1 kWh = 3600 kJ) are used in specific areas of science and commerce.

Any of that sinking in?

ROFL, completely and utterly idiotic of you to make that claim...

BTW, if I wanted to deceive you I'd have left that line out.. Grow up drama queen "may travel in unusual patterns" does not mean what you think it does.. LOL, it referred to the next sentence which I DID underline...

Radiation waves may travel in unusual patterns compare to conduction heat flow. Radiation allows waves to travel from a heated body through a cold nonabsorbing or partially absorbing medium and reach a warmer body again.[1] This is the case of the radiation waves that travel from the sun to the earth.

Happy now? See what they are referring to? Or did you see it and try a bait and switch again? Kind of like the SOD webiste did that you linked to when they used the text book pages to imply things that wasn't intended....

Oh please appeal to the forum, we love that... BTW, threats to ignore me bother not one bit.. Please do so and then I won't have to deal with your condescending tone and thinly-veiled insults, only to watch you cry when I insult you back..

LOL... That energy is only heat thing was really classic...

 

[gslack]

I shouldn't feed the trolls but....

You are retarded. It doesn't matter what reference period you use to calibrate the anomalies. It only affects the offset and SDs, not the rank ordering.

The graph was presented in 2010 before they had the full year of data. Bad practice yes, but not the trick you think it is. At least they fully acknowledged what they were doing, unlike many other truncations and cherrypicking that can be found in climate science.

LOL, they called it them records for the last 180 or so years, and based that on deviation from a 30 year mean.. Meaning it's only a record when compared to the mean between 61 and 90.. YOU IDIOT.....

ROFL, don't blink Ian, yes you did just try and stand your ground on an obvious screw up for pride sake... Don't let pride make you a moron too... It's a bogus claim created to give a false impression, you know it, I know it.. A record for 180 years would be a deviation from that 180 year mean, or god forbid an actual record like highest or lowest temp for that day in time..

It's a BS chart to give a false impression, and the fact you defend it confirms what I said about you previously...

Like I said, you are retarded. Show us an example of how using a different base period changes the rank ordering of the yearly data.

You fixate on meaningless things. Why don't you focus on real problems? Say, why does the rank order from 1999 not agree with the rank order from 2012, for years included in both datasets?

ROFL, you are a warmer Ian..

Thank god you're not an accountant.. Why not use the full 180 years? Why use 1961-1990, why not use 1861-1890? Why not just pick a year every 5 or so years? LOL...Ian you're not even luke warm anymore dude...

 

[IanC]

LOL, they called it them records for the last 180 or so years, and based that on deviation from a 30 year mean.. Meaning it's only a record when compared to the mean between 61 and 90.. YOU IDIOT.....

ROFL, don't blink Ian, yes you did just try and stand your ground on an obvious screw up for pride sake... Don't let pride make you a moron too... It's a bogus claim created to give a false impression, you know it, I know it.. A record for 180 years would be a deviation from that 180 year mean, or god forbid an actual record like highest or lowest temp for that day in time..

It's a BS chart to give a false impression, and the fact you defend it confirms what I said about you previously...

Like I said, you are retarded. Show us an example of how using a different base period changes the rank ordering of the yearly data.

You fixate on meaningless things. Why don't you focus on real problems? Say, why does the rank order from 1999 not agree with the rank order from 2012, for years included in both datasets?

ROFL, you are a warmer Ian..

Thank god you're not an accountant.. Why not use the full 180 years? Why use 1961-1990, why not use 1861-1890? Why not just pick a year every 5 or so years? LOL...Ian you're not even luke warm anymore dude...

It never ceases to amaze me how illiterate you are in science and math. The simplist concepts seem to be beyond your grasp. Why don't you try to explain to us why you believe the rank order is changed by simply using a different origin and units, equally applied to all yearly numbers? Adding one, five or a hundred to each number doesn't change the absolute difference between the numbers. Measuring in degrees celcius Kelvin or farenheit doesn't change the absolute difference in the numbers.

Why don't you give us an example of how the rank ordering can change? Perhaps I am missing something.

 

[gslack]

Like I said, you are retarded. Show us an example of how using a different base period changes the rank ordering of the yearly data.

You fixate on meaningless things. Why don't you focus on real problems? Say, why does the rank order from 1999 not agree with the rank order from 2012, for years included in both datasets?

ROFL, you are a warmer Ian..

Thank god you're not an accountant.. Why not use the full 180 years? Why use 1961-1990, why not use 1861-1890? Why not just pick a year every 5 or so years? LOL...Ian you're not even luke warm anymore dude...

It never ceases to amaze me how illiterate you are in science and math. The simplist concepts seem to be beyond your grasp. Why don't you try to explain to us why you believe the rank order is changed by simply using a different origin and units, equally applied to all yearly numbers? Adding one, five or a hundred to each number doesn't change the absolute difference between the numbers. Measuring in degrees celcius Kelvin or farenheit doesn't change the absolute difference in the numbers.

Why don't you give us an example of how the rank ordering can change? Perhaps I am missing something.

Simple dumbass, have the temps remained the same for the last 180 years? An average temp for a given 30 years in a 180 year run, can vary simply because the freaking weather can vary..

AGAIN, we see you worshipping numbers that you do not relate to anything real.. To you they are numbers, but in reality those numbers represent an average temperature.. You are treating this as if the temps mean nothing so long as the math adds up.. it's ignorant and shows how little you actually think this through...

No 30 year period will be exactly like another 30 year period. You think so long as it can be statistically correct it's true. When in reality it's nothing more than a statistical possibility. Not a fact, not a given, not a certainty, just a possibility. Sounds great when you are guessing at something, but not so great when you are trying to claim something as a fact..

Want ot get a idea on something? Want to be in the ball park? Sure statistics is the way to go. Want to call something a fact? want to state something as a certainty? Statistics won't be enough...

Another fine example of half-ass climate science think... They aren't saying it was a statistical possibility the last years were records,they are saying they ARE records, and basing that claim on a 30 year period mean. And YOU are pretending that since a 30 year mean can be statistically "close enough" by climate science standards, than it is fact..

it's an asinine and silly assumption, and NOT a fact by any measure.. But then again you beleive in perfect heat engines and re-using the same energy to do the same task, so of course you think slip-shod crap like this is fine..

 

[Abraham3]

ROFL, you are a warmer Ian..

Thank god you're not an accountant.. Why not use the full 180 years? Why use 1961-1990, why not use 1861-1890? Why not just pick a year every 5 or so years? LOL...Ian you're not even luke warm anymore dude...

It never ceases to amaze me how illiterate you are in science and math. The simplist concepts seem to be beyond your grasp. Why don't you try to explain to us why you believe the rank order is changed by simply using a different origin and units, equally applied to all yearly numbers? Adding one, five or a hundred to each number doesn't change the absolute difference between the numbers. Measuring in degrees celcius Kelvin or farenheit doesn't change the absolute difference in the numbers.

Why don't you give us an example of how the rank ordering can change? Perhaps I am missing something.

Simple dumbass, have the temps remained the same for the last 180 years? An average temp for a given 30 years in a 180 year run, can vary simply because the freaking weather can vary..

AGAIN, we see you worshipping numbers that you do not relate to anything real.. To you they are numbers, but in reality those numbers represent an average temperature.. You are treating this as if the temps mean nothing so long as the math adds up.. it's ignorant and shows how little you actually think this through...

No 30 year period will be exactly like another 30 year period. You think so long as it can be statistically correct it's true. When in reality it's nothing more than a statistical possibility. Not a fact, not a given, not a certainty, just a possibility. Sounds great when you are guessing at something, but not so great when you are trying to claim something as a fact..

Want ot get a idea on something? Want to be in the ball park? Sure statistics is the way to go. Want to call something a fact? want to state something as a certainty? Statistics won't be enough...

Another fine example of half-ass climate science think... They aren't saying it was a statistical possibility the last years were records,they are saying they ARE records, and basing that claim on a 30 year period mean. And YOU are pretending that since a 30 year mean can be statistically "close enough" by climate science standards, than it is fact..

it's an asinine and silly assumption, and NOT a fact by any measure.. But then again you beleive in perfect heat engines and re-using the same energy to do the same task, so of course you think slip-shod crap like this is fine..

I have never seen someone so in need of an education.

It's almost as if you know better but say these things on purpose. I'm not sure anyone could be wrong this often.

 

[skookerasbil]

It never ceases to amaze me how illiterate you are in science and math. The simplist concepts seem to be beyond your grasp. Why don't you try to explain to us why you believe the rank order is changed by simply using a different origin and units, equally applied to all yearly numbers? Adding one, five or a hundred to each number doesn't change the absolute difference between the numbers. Measuring in degrees celcius Kelvin or farenheit doesn't change the absolute difference in the numbers.

Why don't you give us an example of how the rank ordering can change? Perhaps I am missing something.

Simple dumbass, have the temps remained the same for the last 180 years? An average temp for a given 30 years in a 180 year run, can vary simply because the freaking weather can vary..

AGAIN, we see you worshipping numbers that you do not relate to anything real.. To you they are numbers, but in reality those numbers represent an average temperature.. You are treating this as if the temps mean nothing so long as the math adds up.. it's ignorant and shows how little you actually think this through...

No 30 year period will be exactly like another 30 year period. You think so long as it can be statistically correct it's true. When in reality it's nothing more than a statistical possibility. Not a fact, not a given, not a certainty, just a possibility. Sounds great when you are guessing at something, but not so great when you are trying to claim something as a fact..

Want ot get a idea on something? Want to be in the ball park? Sure statistics is the way to go. Want to call something a fact? want to state something as a certainty? Statistics won't be enough...

Another fine example of half-ass climate science think... They aren't saying it was a statistical possibility the last years were records,they are saying they ARE records, and basing that claim on a 30 year period mean. And YOU are pretending that since a 30 year mean can be statistically "close enough" by climate science standards, than it is fact..

it's an asinine and silly assumption, and NOT a fact by any measure.. But then again you beleive in perfect heat engines and re-using the same energy to do the same task, so of course you think slip-shod crap like this is fine..

I have never seen someone so in need of an education.

Particularly one that so resembles a penis. Have you thought of a mustache or beard?

Abe s0n.....your getting pwned. Its always very apparent when the insults start getting personal as a response to public humiliation......you see it ALL the time in these forums from progressives. Just highly gay.......

 

[Abraham3]

Simple dumbass, have the temps remained the same for the last 180 years? An average temp for a given 30 years in a 180 year run, can vary simply because the freaking weather can vary..

AGAIN, we see you worshipping numbers that you do not relate to anything real.. To you they are numbers, but in reality those numbers represent an average temperature.. You are treating this as if the temps mean nothing so long as the math adds up.. it's ignorant and shows how little you actually think this through...

No 30 year period will be exactly like another 30 year period. You think so long as it can be statistically correct it's true. When in reality it's nothing more than a statistical possibility. Not a fact, not a given, not a certainty, just a possibility. Sounds great when you are guessing at something, but not so great when you are trying to claim something as a fact..

Want ot get a idea on something? Want to be in the ball park? Sure statistics is the way to go. Want to call something a fact? want to state something as a certainty? Statistics won't be enough...

Another fine example of half-ass climate science think... They aren't saying it was a statistical possibility the last years were records,they are saying they ARE records, and basing that claim on a 30 year period mean. And YOU are pretending that since a 30 year mean can be statistically "close enough" by climate science standards, than it is fact..

it's an asinine and silly assumption, and NOT a fact by any measure.. But then again you beleive in perfect heat engines and re-using the same energy to do the same task, so of course you think slip-shod crap like this is fine..

I have never seen someone so in need of an education.

Particularly one that so resembles a penis. Have you thought of a mustache or beard?

Abe s0n.....your getting pwned. Its always very apparent when the insults start getting personal as a response to public humiliation......you see it ALL the time in these forums from progressives. Just highly gay.......

As if you don't think he looks like a penis.

 

[westwall]

CO2 is either catastrophic for the world or it doesn't do anything. Let's not give a fuck! Woohoo!!!

CO2 is the fundamental building block of life you ignorant twat. Remove the CO2 down to the level the even more ignorant twats want and NOTHING CAN GROW. Don't believe me. Look it up....I dare you....

 

[gslack]

It never ceases to amaze me how illiterate you are in science and math. The simplist concepts seem to be beyond your grasp. Why don't you try to explain to us why you believe the rank order is changed by simply using a different origin and units, equally applied to all yearly numbers? Adding one, five or a hundred to each number doesn't change the absolute difference between the numbers. Measuring in degrees celcius Kelvin or farenheit doesn't change the absolute difference in the numbers.

Why don't you give us an example of how the rank ordering can change? Perhaps I am missing something.

Simple dumbass, have the temps remained the same for the last 180 years? An average temp for a given 30 years in a 180 year run, can vary simply because the freaking weather can vary..

AGAIN, we see you worshipping numbers that you do not relate to anything real.. To you they are numbers, but in reality those numbers represent an average temperature.. You are treating this as if the temps mean nothing so long as the math adds up.. it's ignorant and shows how little you actually think this through...

No 30 year period will be exactly like another 30 year period. You think so long as it can be statistically correct it's true. When in reality it's nothing more than a statistical possibility. Not a fact, not a given, not a certainty, just a possibility. Sounds great when you are guessing at something, but not so great when you are trying to claim something as a fact..

Want ot get a idea on something? Want to be in the ball park? Sure statistics is the way to go. Want to call something a fact? want to state something as a certainty? Statistics won't be enough...

Another fine example of half-ass climate science think... They aren't saying it was a statistical possibility the last years were records,they are saying they ARE records, and basing that claim on a 30 year period mean. And YOU are pretending that since a 30 year mean can be statistically "close enough" by climate science standards, than it is fact..

it's an asinine and silly assumption, and NOT a fact by any measure.. But then again you beleive in perfect heat engines and re-using the same energy to do the same task, so of course you think slip-shod crap like this is fine..

I have never seen someone so in need of an education.

It's almost as if you know better but say these things on purpose. I'm not sure anyone could be wrong this often.

Why the edit socko? Get your hand smacked for the use of language? LOL, you shut-ins always show yourselves....

No worries I see it in skooks quoted response...

You seem obsessed with my body parts now...

BTW socko, my avatar is a cartoon.. You know a caricature.. Kind of like your claimed scientific knowledge... Gives an idea of something real but not completely accurate, a joke of sorts.. Again like you...

Now if you must know, I do have a beard most of the time.. Please, try not to drool over the idea... Get a life socko..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Odd that in a mere 30 year period a wisp of CO2 can raise temperatures so greatly over an entire planet but gets stage fright whenever its asked to repeat this performance in a lab

 

[mamooth]

Odd that in a mere 30 year period a wisp of CO2 can raise temperatures so greatly over an entire planet but gets stage fright whenever its asked to repeat this performance in a lab

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo .... look at the cranks actually claiming the greenhouse effect can't be demonstrated in the lab.

That's the level of delusion it takes to be a member of the denialist cult. And they'll never get better. They're too stupid to understand how stupid they are, a perfect display of Dunning-Kruger. No matter how much evidence piles up, the cult will be there to tell them why they can ignore it.

 

[flacaltenn]

It never ceases to amaze me how illiterate you are in science and math. The simplist concepts seem to be beyond your grasp. Why don't you try to explain to us why you believe the rank order is changed by simply using a different origin and units, equally applied to all yearly numbers? Adding one, five or a hundred to each number doesn't change the absolute difference between the numbers. Measuring in degrees celcius Kelvin or farenheit doesn't change the absolute difference in the numbers.

Why don't you give us an example of how the rank ordering can change? Perhaps I am missing something.

Simple dumbass, have the temps remained the same for the last 180 years? An average temp for a given 30 years in a 180 year run, can vary simply because the freaking weather can vary..

AGAIN, we see you worshipping numbers that you do not relate to anything real.. To you they are numbers, but in reality those numbers represent an average temperature.. You are treating this as if the temps mean nothing so long as the math adds up.. it's ignorant and shows how little you actually think this through...

No 30 year period will be exactly like another 30 year period. You think so long as it can be statistically correct it's true. When in reality it's nothing more than a statistical possibility. Not a fact, not a given, not a certainty, just a possibility. Sounds great when you are guessing at something, but not so great when you are trying to claim something as a fact..

Want ot get a idea on something? Want to be in the ball park? Sure statistics is the way to go. Want to call something a fact? want to state something as a certainty? Statistics won't be enough...

Another fine example of half-ass climate science think... They aren't saying it was a statistical possibility the last years were records,they are saying they ARE records, and basing that claim on a 30 year period mean. And YOU are pretending that since a 30 year mean can be statistically "close enough" by climate science standards, than it is fact..

it's an asinine and silly assumption, and NOT a fact by any measure.. But then again you beleive in perfect heat engines and re-using the same energy to do the same task, so of course you think slip-shod crap like this is fine..

I have never seen someone so in need of an education.

It's almost as if you know better but say these things on purpose. I'm not sure anyone could be wrong this often.

Tried to warn IanC not to try and explain "deviation" to the troll.. But he had to try and cross the bridge.. NOTHING gets across that bridge between his ears..

 

[IanC]

Simple dumbass, have the temps remained the same for the last 180 years? An average temp for a given 30 years in a 180 year run, can vary simply because the freaking weather can vary..

AGAIN, we see you worshipping numbers that you do not relate to anything real.. To you they are numbers, but in reality those numbers represent an average temperature.. You are treating this as if the temps mean nothing so long as the math adds up.. it's ignorant and shows how little you actually think this through...

No 30 year period will be exactly like another 30 year period. You think so long as it can be statistically correct it's true. When in reality it's nothing more than a statistical possibility. Not a fact, not a given, not a certainty, just a possibility. Sounds great when you are guessing at something, but not so great when you are trying to claim something as a fact..

Want ot get a idea on something? Want to be in the ball park? Sure statistics is the way to go. Want to call something a fact? want to state something as a certainty? Statistics won't be enough...

Another fine example of half-ass climate science think... They aren't saying it was a statistical possibility the last years were records,they are saying they ARE records, and basing that claim on a 30 year period mean. And YOU are pretending that since a 30 year mean can be statistically "close enough" by climate science standards, than it is fact..

it's an asinine and silly assumption, and NOT a fact by any measure.. But then again you beleive in perfect heat engines and re-using the same energy to do the same task, so of course you think slip-shod crap like this is fine..

I have never seen someone so in need of an education.

It's almost as if you know better but say these things on purpose. I'm not sure anyone could be wrong this often.

Tried to warn IanC not to try and explain "deviation" to the troll.. But he had to try and cross the bridge.. NOTHING gets across that bridge between his ears..

Lackwit gslack has complained in the past that I pick on his stupidities and ignore the warmera's idiotic bleatings. He doesn't seem to realize that he is an embarrassment to the skeptical side. I don't care if warmers make foolish statements and cannot sift the science from the bullshit. But when someone brings shame down on the skeptics through blatant stupidity even though he has been corrected countless times.....well that just pisses me off.