Correlation between temperature and CO2

[SSDD]

The average differential between the model and reality is about 1/2 a degree of brightness. Anytime you can't see the black line it is within that range.

Still misreading...wherever you can see the black line is where the models were wrong...the only relevant line in those graphs insofar as your position goes is the difference between the black line observation in 1979 and the black line observation in 2006...and there is no difference...they are identical in the wavelengths at issue.

Temperature is irrelevant as CO2 has no effect on temperature...and brightness temperature isn't going to be of any use to you in proving your beliefs anyway.

 

[IanC]

The average differential between the model and reality is about 1/2 a degree of brightness. Anytime you can't see the black line it is within that range.

Still misreading...wherever you can see the black line is where the models were wrong...the only relevant line in those graphs insofar as your position goes is the difference between the black line observation in 1979 and the black line observation in 2006...and there is no difference...they are identical in the wavelengths at issue.

Temperature is irrelevant as CO2 has no effect on temperature...and brightness temperature isn't going to be of any use to you in proving your beliefs anyway.

Why did you produce graphs measured in brightness temperature to rebut me if you think they are useless?

Are you going to admit your careless mistake this time? Even after I pointed it out, you are still claiming more measured IR than predicted IR.

What is with you and polarbear? You both say obviously untrue things just to argue with me, and then offer up evidence to prove you wrong and support my case.

 

[IanC]

For those of you who don't understand why my graph and SSDD'S appear to be different, here is a short explanation.

My graph shows the actual amount of radiation. The red lines are Planck curves for blackbodies at the labeled temperatures.

SSDD'S graph shows the temperature at which this amount of radiation would be expected for a particular wavelength.

They give the same information although mine is model output for the globe at 15C and his is for a specific area at about 22 or 23C.

If you look at the notches at various wavelengths you will see very similar patterns, although the range of wavelengths is smaller in his graphs. They were looking for information on radiation that escapes directly to space and that is why they did not capture the whole CO2 band.

If you cut a section out of the Planck curve and rotate it into a straight horizontal line it looks like SSDD'S graph.

 

[jc456]

For those of you who don't understand why my graph and SSDD'S appear to be different, here is a short explanation.

My graph shows the actual amount of radiation. The red lines are Planck curves for blackbodies at the labeled temperatures.

SSDD'S graph shows the temperature at which this amount of radiation would be expected for a particular wavelength.

They give the same information although mine is model output for the globe at 15C and his is for a specific area at about 22 or 23C.

If you look at the notches at various wavelengths you will see very similar patterns, although the range of wavelengths is smaller in his graphs. They were looking for information on radiation that escapes directly to space and that is why they did not capture the whole CO2 band.

If you cut a section out of the Planck curve and rotate it into a straight horizontal line it looks like SSDD'S graph.

 

[Billy_Bob]

When will this bullshit end?

About the time we begin to plunge into the next glacial cycle... When we drop 3 deg C in 10 years it will be painfully obvious..

 

[IanC]

For those of you who don't understand why my graph and SSDD'S appear to be different, here is a short explanation.

My graph shows the actual amount of radiation. The red lines are Planck curves for blackbodies at the labeled temperatures.

SSDD'S graph shows the temperature at which this amount of radiation would be expected for a particular wavelength.

They give the same information although mine is model output for the globe at 15C and his is for a specific area at about 22 or 23C.

If you look at the notches at various wavelengths you will see very similar patterns, although the range of wavelengths is smaller in his graphs. They were looking for information on radiation that escapes directly to space and that is why they did not capture the whole CO2 band.

If you cut a section out of the Planck curve and rotate it into a straight horizontal line it looks like SSDD'S graph.

From past experience with you, I don't believe you have the mental capacity to understand anything that involves scientific or mathematical concepts. So I won't bother asking you what you disagree with. There is simply no point.

 

[miketx]

For those of you who don't understand why my graph and SSDD'S appear to be different, here is a short explanation.

My graph shows the actual amount of radiation. The red lines are Planck curves for blackbodies at the labeled temperatures.

SSDD'S graph shows the temperature at which this amount of radiation would be expected for a particular wavelength.

They give the same information although mine is model output for the globe at 15C and his is for a specific area at about 22 or 23C.

If you look at the notches at various wavelengths you will see very similar patterns, although the range of wavelengths is smaller in his graphs. They were looking for information on radiation that escapes directly to space and that is why they did not capture the whole CO2 band.

If you cut a section out of the Planck curve and rotate it into a straight horizontal line it looks like SSDD'S graph.

From past experience with you, I don't believe you have the mental capacity to understand anything that involves scientific or mathematical concepts. So I won't bother asking you what you disagree with. There is simply no point.

When you can't win, insult the others intelligence. Classic liberal job.

 

[SSDD]

For those of you who don't understand why my graph and SSDD'S appear to be different, here is a short explanation.

My graph shows the actual amount of radiation. The red lines are Planck curves for blackbodies at the labeled temperatures.

Bullshit ian...your graph shows a model...whereas my graph shows actual measurements taken in 1970 and 2006 respectively.

SSDD'S graph shows the temperature at which this amount of radiation would be expected for a particular wavelength.

No ian...my graph shows actual measurement without regard to temperature....geez guy, the more you talk the more I see why you are such a complete dupe...for all your talk, you don't understand even the basics.

 

[SSDD]

From past experience with you, I don't believe you have the mental capacity to understand anything that involves scientific or mathematical concepts. So I won't bother asking you what you disagree with. There is simply no point.

The exact same can be said of you considering how badly you have misunderstood this basic piece of data...at least jc isn't a f'ing poser pretending to have all the answers like you and talking down to people who grasp the topic to a far higher degree than you probably ever will due to your fervent belief in magic.

 

[jc456]

For those of you who don't understand why my graph and SSDD'S appear to be different, here is a short explanation.

My graph shows the actual amount of radiation. The red lines are Planck curves for blackbodies at the labeled temperatures.

SSDD'S graph shows the temperature at which this amount of radiation would be expected for a particular wavelength.

They give the same information although mine is model output for the globe at 15C and his is for a specific area at about 22 or 23C.

If you look at the notches at various wavelengths you will see very similar patterns, although the range of wavelengths is smaller in his graphs. They were looking for information on radiation that escapes directly to space and that is why they did not capture the whole CO2 band.

If you cut a section out of the Planck curve and rotate it into a straight horizontal line it looks like SSDD'S graph.

From past experience with you, I don't believe you have the mental capacity to understand anything that involves scientific or mathematical concepts. So I won't bother asking you what you disagree with. There is simply no point.

Dude, you're so much more superior to me, but I know the difference between models and observation. Your intellect and that you can't grasp. Funny

 

[IanC]

For those of you who don't understand why my graph and SSDD'S appear to be different, here is a short explanation.

My graph shows the actual amount of radiation. The red lines are Planck curves for blackbodies at the labeled temperatures.

SSDD'S graph shows the temperature at which this amount of radiation would be expected for a particular wavelength.

They give the same information although mine is model output for the globe at 15C and his is for a specific area at about 22 or 23C.

If you look at the notches at various wavelengths you will see very similar patterns, although the range of wavelengths is smaller in his graphs. They were looking for information on radiation that escapes directly to space and that is why they did not capture the whole CO2 band.

If you cut a section out of the Planck curve and rotate it into a straight horizontal line it looks like SSDD'S graph.

From past experience with you, I don't believe you have the mental capacity to understand anything that involves scientific or mathematical concepts. So I won't bother asking you what you disagree with. There is simply no point.

When you can't win, insult the others intelligence. Classic liberal job.

Nope. I just honestly believe jc456 is stupid.

 

[jc456]

For those of you who don't understand why my graph and SSDD'S appear to be different, here is a short explanation.

My graph shows the actual amount of radiation. The red lines are Planck curves for blackbodies at the labeled temperatures.

SSDD'S graph shows the temperature at which this amount of radiation would be expected for a particular wavelength.

They give the same information although mine is model output for the globe at 15C and his is for a specific area at about 22 or 23C.

If you look at the notches at various wavelengths you will see very similar patterns, although the range of wavelengths is smaller in his graphs. They were looking for information on radiation that escapes directly to space and that is why they did not capture the whole CO2 band.

If you cut a section out of the Planck curve and rotate it into a straight horizontal line it looks like SSDD'S graph.

From past experience with you, I don't believe you have the mental capacity to understand anything that involves scientific or mathematical concepts. So I won't bother asking you what you disagree with. There is simply no point.

When you can't win, insult the others intelligence. Classic liberal job.

Nope. I just honestly believe jc456 is stupid.

I at least know the difference between models and observations. Proof and hypothesis

 

[miketx]

For those of you who don't understand why my graph and SSDD'S appear to be different, here is a short explanation.

My graph shows the actual amount of radiation. The red lines are Planck curves for blackbodies at the labeled temperatures.

SSDD'S graph shows the temperature at which this amount of radiation would be expected for a particular wavelength.

They give the same information although mine is model output for the globe at 15C and his is for a specific area at about 22 or 23C.

If you look at the notches at various wavelengths you will see very similar patterns, although the range of wavelengths is smaller in his graphs. They were looking for information on radiation that escapes directly to space and that is why they did not capture the whole CO2 band.

If you cut a section out of the Planck curve and rotate it into a straight horizontal line it looks like SSDD'S graph.

From past experience with you, I don't believe you have the mental capacity to understand anything that involves scientific or mathematical concepts. So I won't bother asking you what you disagree with. There is simply no point.

When you can't win, insult the others intelligence. Classic liberal job.

Nope. I just honestly believe jc456 is stupid.

I at least know the difference between models and observations. Proof and hypothesis

LOL! Lib says he's not insulting your intelligence and then calls you stupid. LOL!

 

[jc456]

From past experience with you, I don't believe you have the mental capacity to understand anything that involves scientific or mathematical concepts. So I won't bother asking you what you disagree with. There is simply no point.

When you can't win, insult the others intelligence. Classic liberal job.

Nope. I just honestly believe jc456 is stupid.

I at least know the difference between models and observations. Proof and hypothesis

LOL! Lib says he's not insulting your intelligence and then calls you stupid. LOL!

All of his intelligence and yet doesn't know the difference between models and observations. Oh, he has yet to post any data that is observed. SSDD blows him away. I ask for proof, no one has ever provided any and I'm stupid

 

[miketx]

From past experience with you, I don't believe you have the mental capacity to understand anything that involves scientific or mathematical concepts. So I won't bother asking you what you disagree with. There is simply no point.

When you can't win, insult the others intelligence. Classic liberal job.

Nope. I just honestly believe jc456 is stupid.

I at least know the difference between models and observations. Proof and hypothesis

LOL! Lib says he's not insulting your intelligence and then calls you stupid. LOL!

All of his intelligence and yet doesn't know the difference between models and observations. Oh, he has yet to post any data that is observed. SSDD blows him away. I ask for proof, no one has ever provided any and I'm stupid

Like all regressive libs, they assume if the say it over and over people will start to believe it.

 

[IanC]

For those of you who don't understand why my graph and SSDD'S appear to be different, here is a short explanation.

My graph shows the actual amount of radiation. The red lines are Planck curves for blackbodies at the labeled temperatures.

SSDD'S graph shows the temperature at which this amount of radiation would be expected for a particular wavelength.

They give the same information although mine is model output for the globe at 15C and his is for a specific area at about 22 or 23C.

If you look at the notches at various wavelengths you will see very similar patterns, although the range of wavelengths is smaller in his graphs. They were looking for information on radiation that escapes directly to space and that is why they did not capture the whole CO2 band.

If you cut a section out of the Planck curve and rotate it into a straight horizontal line it looks like SSDD'S graph.

From past experience with you, I don't believe you have the mental capacity to understand anything that involves scientific or mathematical concepts. So I won't bother asking you what you disagree with. There is simply no point.

Dude, you're so much more superior to me, but I know the difference between models and observation. Your intellect and that you can't grasp. Funny

I clearly identified my graph as model input. You clearly can't read with comprehension.

 

[miketx]

For those of you who don't understand why my graph and SSDD'S appear to be different, here is a short explanation.

My graph shows the actual amount of radiation. The red lines are Planck curves for blackbodies at the labeled temperatures.

SSDD'S graph shows the temperature at which this amount of radiation would be expected for a particular wavelength.

They give the same information although mine is model output for the globe at 15C and his is for a specific area at about 22 or 23C.

If you look at the notches at various wavelengths you will see very similar patterns, although the range of wavelengths is smaller in his graphs. They were looking for information on radiation that escapes directly to space and that is why they did not capture the whole CO2 band.

If you cut a section out of the Planck curve and rotate it into a straight horizontal line it looks like SSDD'S graph.

From past experience with you, I don't believe you have the mental capacity to understand anything that involves scientific or mathematical concepts. So I won't bother asking you what you disagree with. There is simply no point.

Dude, you're so much more superior to me, but I know the difference between models and observation. Your intellect and that you can't grasp. Funny

I clearly identified my graph as model input. You clearly can't read with comprehension.

More childish insults. What is it you libs think you will gain by doing that? You all do it and it makes you look like pompous arrogant schmucks.

 

[IanC]

From past experience with you, I don't believe you have the mental capacity to understand anything that involves scientific or mathematical concepts. So I won't bother asking you what you disagree with. There is simply no point.

When you can't win, insult the others intelligence. Classic liberal job.

Nope. I just honestly believe jc456 is stupid.

I at least know the difference between models and observations. Proof and hypothesis

LOL! Lib says he's not insulting your intelligence and then calls you stupid. LOL!

Why do you think I am a 'lib' ?

I think it is funny that the extremists on the warmers side call me a denier, and the extremists on the skeptical side call me a warmer.

I must be doing something right.

 

[IanC]

For those of you who don't understand why my graph and SSDD'S appear to be different, here is a short explanation.

My graph shows the actual amount of radiation. The red lines are Planck curves for blackbodies at the labeled temperatures.

SSDD'S graph shows the temperature at which this amount of radiation would be expected for a particular wavelength.

They give the same information although mine is model output for the globe at 15C and his is for a specific area at about 22 or 23C.

If you look at the notches at various wavelengths you will see very similar patterns, although the range of wavelengths is smaller in his graphs. They were looking for information on radiation that escapes directly to space and that is why they did not capture the whole CO2 band.

If you cut a section out of the Planck curve and rotate it into a straight horizontal line it looks like SSDD'S graph.

From past experience with you, I don't believe you have the mental capacity to understand anything that involves scientific or mathematical concepts. So I won't bother asking you what you disagree with. There is simply no point.

Dude, you're so much more superior to me, but I know the difference between models and observation. Your intellect and that you can't grasp. Funny

I clearly identified my graph as model input. You clearly can't read with comprehension.

More childish insults. What is it you libs think you will gain by doing that? You all do it and it makes you look like pompous arrogant schmucks.

Hahahaha. This is a specific case, not a generalization. jc456 is stupid. Not willfully ignorant but actually incapable of grasping concepts.

You may think it cruel of me to say that but at a certain point it becomes ridiculous to expect anything from him in the way of intelligent conversation.

 

[IanC]

For those of you who didn't like the modtran graph here is a graph of measured data. Same shape, although it is for a higher temperature.

Graphs with irradiance on the y axis look like this. Graphs with brightness temperature on the y axis look like SSDD'S graph.

They both present similar information but visually they look different.

Some graphs use wavenumbers on the x axis, some use wavelength. The nomenclature looks different but they are describing the same thing.