Does AR5 contain observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW

[Toddsterpatriot]

we can. not too many places though right?

Any place we build a detector. They come in from the entire sky.

BTW, where do these radio waves come from? Did they just magically show up, or is there a reason why they are there?

They come from the Big Bang.

And I believe the only place they are measuring these radio waves is in New Zealand.

They were first detected/explained based on a radio telescope in New Jersey.

Cosmic Anniversary: 'Big Bang Echo' Discovered 50 Years Ago Today

we can. not too many places though right?

Any place we build a detector. They come in from the entire sky.

BTW, where do these radio waves come from? Did they just magically show up, or is there a reason why they are there?

They come from the Big Bang.

And I believe the only place they are measuring these radio waves is in New Zealand.

They were first detected/explained based on a radio telescope in New Jersey.

Cosmic Anniversary: 'Big Bang Echo' Discovered 50 Years Ago Today

well in 1964 I supposed FM radio wasn't in full mass yet, so that makes sense. However, today, New Zealand is where the new field is for listening to the stars radio.

Yep, the big bang. They arrived due to force from the big bang expansion. Force!!!

well in 1964 I supposed FM radio wasn't in full mass yet, so that makes sense.

What does FM radio have to do with detecting energy from the Big Bang?

They arrived due to force from the big bang expansion.

What does force have to do with the discussion?

it's the frequency the radio waves come in on. I just watched a series on it on the scifi channel. New Zealand is where there is someone recording those waves from the first star.

it's the frequency the radio waves come in on.

You think our FM broadcasts are on the same frequency as CMBR?

it's what they said on the broadcast I watched from New Zealand. Have to go there to get out of the interference of the FM radio stations. hmmmmmmmm seems you don't know this. When I get home tonight I'll get you the series it came from.

Don't bother, my FM radio doesn't pick up CMBR, no matter what your confused recollection was.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

first off, Curry has many guest posts by outside authors that she respects but does not necessarily agree with. do you know who penned the article in question?

here is the comment in the article that Johnson spun into "Professor Claes Johnson thereafter also persuaded Dr. Curry to abandon back radiation."

is this a renouncement of anything? I dont think so

so where exactly was my article wrong? you just confirmed what the article stated. Again, CO2 absorbs incoming IR from the sun. How is that out of context from what she claims?

So?

Again, CO2 absorbs incoming IR from the sun.

And outgoing radiation from the surface. It emits some of this IR, without regard to direction.

the outgoing upward.

And downward and sideways.

That's what, "without regard to direction" means.

sideways, maybe, after that, upwards. sorry charlie

Yes, your confusion is sorry.

 

[jc456]

well in 1964 I supposed FM radio wasn't in full mass yet, so that makes sense. However, today, New Zealand is where the new field is for listening to the stars radio.

Yep, the big bang. They arrived due to force from the big bang expansion. Force!!!

well in 1964 I supposed FM radio wasn't in full mass yet, so that makes sense.

What does FM radio have to do with detecting energy from the Big Bang?

They arrived due to force from the big bang expansion.

What does force have to do with the discussion?

it's the frequency the radio waves come in on. I just watched a series on it on the scifi channel. New Zealand is where there is someone recording those waves from the first star.

it's the frequency the radio waves come in on.

You think our FM broadcasts are on the same frequency as CMBR?

it's what they said on the broadcast I watched from New Zealand. Have to go there to get out of the interference of the FM radio stations. hmmmmmmmm seems you don't know this. When I get home tonight I'll get you the series it came from.

Don't bother, my FM radio doesn't pick up CMBR, no matter what your confused recollection was.

mk

 

[jc456]

so where exactly was my article wrong? you just confirmed what the article stated. Again, CO2 absorbs incoming IR from the sun. How is that out of context from what she claims?

So?

Again, CO2 absorbs incoming IR from the sun.

And outgoing radiation from the surface. It emits some of this IR, without regard to direction.

the outgoing upward.

And downward and sideways.

That's what, "without regard to direction" means.

sideways, maybe, after that, upwards. sorry charlie

Yes, your confusion is sorry.

your apology is accepted.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again, CO2 absorbs incoming IR from the sun.

And outgoing radiation from the surface. It emits some of this IR, without regard to direction.

the outgoing upward.

And downward and sideways.

That's what, "without regard to direction" means.

sideways, maybe, after that, upwards. sorry charlie

Yes, your confusion is sorry.

your apology is accepted.

I apologize for your sorry lack of knowledge.

 

[jc456]

the outgoing upward.

And downward and sideways.

That's what, "without regard to direction" means.

sideways, maybe, after that, upwards. sorry charlie

Yes, your confusion is sorry.

your apology is accepted.

I apologize for your sorry lack of knowledge.

you should just thank me for making you smarter.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And downward and sideways.

That's what, "without regard to direction" means.

sideways, maybe, after that, upwards. sorry charlie

Yes, your confusion is sorry.

your apology is accepted.

I apologize for your sorry lack of knowledge.

you should just thank me for making you smarter.

I agree, explaining things to a 10 year old has made me smarter.
Not as smart as SSDD's photons, they know everything!

 

[IanC]

What's the third?

That's a good question for your source, the one that disagrees with your claim.

Let me know what they say.

Here's what they wrote:

"Thus, from the “horse’s mouth” the hand held thermometer gambit is well and truly busted. Professor Claes Johnson thereafter also persuaded Dr. Curry to abandon “back radiation.” But unlike Curry, Spencer did not renounce his “back radiation adds more heat” claims. So Latour pressed home the point to explain to Spencer:"

you foolishly are deferring to authority. did you check out the claim 'Curry renounces back radiation'? I suspect her real words say no such thing.

I have tried to converse with many of the knuckleheads that you think 'speak the truth'. they frame their discussions in a set fashion with certain talking points and refuse to debate the details that contradict their conclusions. this is just as bad as the warmers who do the same thing in the same fashion in many instances.

you lack the intellectual capacity to think things through for yourself, so you just pick a side to believe in.

so Ian let's see her real words. It seems you question the authenticity of the claim. Post up what she said.

first off, Curry has many guest posts by outside authors that she respects but does not necessarily agree with. do you know who penned the article in question?

here is the comment in the article that Johnson spun into "Professor Claes Johnson thereafter also persuaded Dr. Curry to abandon back radiation."

curryja | August 13, 2011 at 10:10 am |
Back radiation is a phrase, one that I don’t use myself, and it is not a word that is used in technical radiative transfer studies. The argument is made technically from the spectral infrared absorption and emission of CO2 and other gases.

is this a renouncement of anything? I dont think so

bump for jc

 

[jc456]

That's a good question for your source, the one that disagrees with your claim.

Let me know what they say.

Here's what they wrote:

"Thus, from the “horse’s mouth” the hand held thermometer gambit is well and truly busted. Professor Claes Johnson thereafter also persuaded Dr. Curry to abandon “back radiation.” But unlike Curry, Spencer did not renounce his “back radiation adds more heat” claims. So Latour pressed home the point to explain to Spencer:"

you foolishly are deferring to authority. did you check out the claim 'Curry renounces back radiation'? I suspect her real words say no such thing.

I have tried to converse with many of the knuckleheads that you think 'speak the truth'. they frame their discussions in a set fashion with certain talking points and refuse to debate the details that contradict their conclusions. this is just as bad as the warmers who do the same thing in the same fashion in many instances.

you lack the intellectual capacity to think things through for yourself, so you just pick a side to believe in.

so Ian let's see her real words. It seems you question the authenticity of the claim. Post up what she said.

first off, Curry has many guest posts by outside authors that she respects but does not necessarily agree with. do you know who penned the article in question?

here is the comment in the article that Johnson spun into "Professor Claes Johnson thereafter also persuaded Dr. Curry to abandon back radiation."

curryja | August 13, 2011 at 10:10 am |
Back radiation is a phrase, one that I don’t use myself, and it is not a word that is used in technical radiative transfer studies. The argument is made technically from the spectral infrared absorption and emission of CO2 and other gases.

is this a renouncement of anything? I dont think so

bump for jc

well again, perhaps you could give me your definition of back radiation.

 

[IanC]

Here's what they wrote:

"Thus, from the “horse’s mouth” the hand held thermometer gambit is well and truly busted. Professor Claes Johnson thereafter also persuaded Dr. Curry to abandon “back radiation.” But unlike Curry, Spencer did not renounce his “back radiation adds more heat” claims. So Latour pressed home the point to explain to Spencer:"

you foolishly are deferring to authority. did you check out the claim 'Curry renounces back radiation'? I suspect her real words say no such thing.

I have tried to converse with many of the knuckleheads that you think 'speak the truth'. they frame their discussions in a set fashion with certain talking points and refuse to debate the details that contradict their conclusions. this is just as bad as the warmers who do the same thing in the same fashion in many instances.

you lack the intellectual capacity to think things through for yourself, so you just pick a side to believe in.

so Ian let's see her real words. It seems you question the authenticity of the claim. Post up what she said.

first off, Curry has many guest posts by outside authors that she respects but does not necessarily agree with. do you know who penned the article in question?

here is the comment in the article that Johnson spun into "Professor Claes Johnson thereafter also persuaded Dr. Curry to abandon back radiation."

curryja | August 13, 2011 at 10:10 am |
Back radiation is a phrase, one that I don’t use myself, and it is not a word that is used in technical radiative transfer studies. The argument is made technically from the spectral infrared absorption and emission of CO2 and other gases.

is this a renouncement of anything? I dont think so

bump for jc

well again, perhaps you could give me your definition of back radiation.

I gave you my description/definition on the other thread where you asked. again.

when are you going to give your definition?

 

[Billy_Bob]

And I stand by that. That article doesn't prove that. nowhere in it does it state that it comes from the atmosphere as back radiation. I posted the quote so stop yourself

I asked SSDD to define back radiation a few days ago. he answered but I lost the reply and I dont know which thread it is in.

he said it was something like....radiation that leaves the surface and comes back to the surface. I wish I had questioned him further.

so jc, what does back radiation mean to you? is it different than downward radiation?

Backward implies returning. There is no radiation returning.

By the way, it's what you can't prove!

we supplied numerous sources of data for the measurement of radiation coming from the atmosphere down to the surface. you refuse to acknowledge them or give any explanation as to why you reject them except to throw out unsubstantiated declaritive statements such as 'fooled by instrumentation'.

Actually I never said fooled by instruments that was SSDD. I never said radiation didn't come towards the surface I said, back radiation

I never said radiation didn't come towards the surface I said, back radiation

Why is "regular" radiation able to move downward, toward the surface,
but "back" radiation can't manage to do the same?

That is the problem with luke warmers.. You can not differentiate what is naturally caused and what is GHG caused. You have no clue as to what the origination of downward radiation in the LWIR band comes from. You also can not show, by empirical evidence, how it affects the earths open atmosphere.

The null hypothesis eviscerates the global warming theroy as, ONE, you can not show what is man made and what is naturally occurring down ward LWIR and, TWO, The theoretical amounts you say are being retained in the system are not causing measurable changes outside of what is expected from NATURAL VARIATION.

The fact that a mid troposphere hot spot has not manifested itself, as identified by IPCC documents and is the theoretical "bottle neck", disproves the DWLWIR theroy.

Now why would this not occur?

Convection and transport in the water cycle. Several studies are in progress showing that the amount of LWIR emanating from the upper troposphere has increased by 2.2%(point of water renucleation and LWIR release at a much longer wave length) and mid troposphere bandpass has declined by 1.3 - 2.2% (done by balloon direct measurement). This energy had to go somewhere. The earth is acting like the earth and uses a secondary route of energy release keeping the energy in/out balance despite mans influence. The boys over at the Boulder, Co lab have been keeping a lid on this work in progress as it smashes the AGW hypothesis to bits.

IT shows that down ward LWIR is being countered and that its net result in warming is zero.

To answer many of the back and forths in this thread about theoretical's...

All matter radiates in all directions.. What that LWIR does is still an unknown and empirical evidence has not yet shown what it does and how it does it. All modeling of this, to date, fails empirical review (doesn't mesh with reality and observed behavior of matter).

Cooler black bodies can not warm warmer ones. Violates the laws of thermal energy travel.

Entropy (energy release) is dependent on the matter doing the transport and the temperature gradient of the matter or different types of matter through which it passes.

Grey Bodies are cooler than black and thus their effect is null. (LWIR wave length is the main reason, theoretical energy contained in the wave)

 

[Billy_Bob]

What I am finding interesting about the new studies is the water cycle does not have to increase for water to hold greater energy. Water vapor has an incredible capacity for energy retention that is unused in cooler atmospheres. This goes to entropy and the matter used in transport.. They theorize that waters energy holding capability is barely being used and thus CO2 and its theoretical slowing of energy release will be easily countered upwards to 9,000ppm or greater and happens near surface totally negating any chance of a mid troposphere hot spot.

This is the reason the earth has never strayed form its roughly 12 deg C boundaries of temperature variation. And why we have seen glacial periods with CO2 levels of 7,000ppm..

Buffered systems always respond slower to abrupt changes in solar output. CO2 might cause a short term rise in temp but the buffer will always win the battle.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I asked SSDD to define back radiation a few days ago. he answered but I lost the reply and I dont know which thread it is in.

he said it was something like....radiation that leaves the surface and comes back to the surface. I wish I had questioned him further.

so jc, what does back radiation mean to you? is it different than downward radiation?

Backward implies returning. There is no radiation returning.

By the way, it's what you can't prove!

we supplied numerous sources of data for the measurement of radiation coming from the atmosphere down to the surface. you refuse to acknowledge them or give any explanation as to why you reject them except to throw out unsubstantiated declaritive statements such as 'fooled by instrumentation'.

Actually I never said fooled by instruments that was SSDD. I never said radiation didn't come towards the surface I said, back radiation

I never said radiation didn't come towards the surface I said, back radiation

Why is "regular" radiation able to move downward, toward the surface,
but "back" radiation can't manage to do the same?

That is the problem with luke warmers.. You can not differentiate what is naturally caused and what is GHG caused. You have no clue as to what the origination of downward radiation in the LWIR band comes from. You also can not show, by empirical evidence, how it affects the earths open atmosphere.

The null hypothesis eviscerates the global warming theroy as, ONE, you can not show what is man made and what is naturally occurring down ward LWIR and, TWO, The theoretical amounts you say are being retained in the system are not causing measurable changes outside of what is expected from NATURAL VARIATION.

The fact that a mid troposphere hot spot has not manifested itself, as identified by IPCC documents and is the theoretical "bottle neck", disproves the DWLWIR theroy.

Now why would this not occur?

Convection and transport in the water cycle. Several studies are in progress showing that the amount of LWIR emanating from the upper troposphere has increased by 2.2%(point of water renucleation and LWIR release at a much longer wave length) and mid troposphere bandpass has declined by 1.3 - 2.2% (done by balloon direct measurement). This energy had to go somewhere. The earth is acting like the earth and uses a secondary route of energy release keeping the energy in/out balance despite mans influence. The boys over at the Boulder, Co lab have been keeping a lid on this work in progress as it smashes the AGW hypothesis to bits.

IT shows that down ward LWIR is being countered and that its net result in warming is zero.

To answer many of the back and forths in this thread about theoretical's...

All matter radiates in all directions.. What that LWIR does is still an unknown and empirical evidence has not yet shown what it does and how it does it. All modeling of this, to date, fails empirical review (doesn't mesh with reality and observed behavior of matter).

Cooler black bodies can not warm warmer ones. Violates the laws of thermal energy travel.

Entropy (energy release) is dependent on the matter doing the transport and the temperature gradient of the matter or different types of matter through which it passes.

Grey Bodies are cooler than black and thus their effect is null. (LWIR wave length is the main reason, theoretical energy contained in the wave)

That is the problem with luke warmers.. You can not differentiate what is naturally caused and what is GHG caused.

Since I'm not in favor of wasting trillions on windmills and I don't want to damage our economy to drop temps in 2080 by 0.1 degrees, I have the luxury of not caring which portion of any potential increase in temperature is due to fossil fuel burning.

You have no clue as to what the origination of downward radiation in the LWIR band comes from.

Please, enlighten me.

All matter radiates in all directions..

Excellent! Please convince SSDD and jc, so I can stop wasting my time trying to educate them.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Backward implies returning. There is no radiation returning.

By the way, it's what you can't prove!

we supplied numerous sources of data for the measurement of radiation coming from the atmosphere down to the surface. you refuse to acknowledge them or give any explanation as to why you reject them except to throw out unsubstantiated declaritive statements such as 'fooled by instrumentation'.

Actually I never said fooled by instruments that was SSDD. I never said radiation didn't come towards the surface I said, back radiation

I never said radiation didn't come towards the surface I said, back radiation

Why is "regular" radiation able to move downward, toward the surface,
but "back" radiation can't manage to do the same?

That is the problem with luke warmers.. You can not differentiate what is naturally caused and what is GHG caused. You have no clue as to what the origination of downward radiation in the LWIR band comes from. You also can not show, by empirical evidence, how it affects the earths open atmosphere.

The null hypothesis eviscerates the global warming theroy as, ONE, you can not show what is man made and what is naturally occurring down ward LWIR and, TWO, The theoretical amounts you say are being retained in the system are not causing measurable changes outside of what is expected from NATURAL VARIATION.

The fact that a mid troposphere hot spot has not manifested itself, as identified by IPCC documents and is the theoretical "bottle neck", disproves the DWLWIR theroy.

Now why would this not occur?

Convection and transport in the water cycle. Several studies are in progress showing that the amount of LWIR emanating from the upper troposphere has increased by 2.2%(point of water renucleation and LWIR release at a much longer wave length) and mid troposphere bandpass has declined by 1.3 - 2.2% (done by balloon direct measurement). This energy had to go somewhere. The earth is acting like the earth and uses a secondary route of energy release keeping the energy in/out balance despite mans influence. The boys over at the Boulder, Co lab have been keeping a lid on this work in progress as it smashes the AGW hypothesis to bits.

IT shows that down ward LWIR is being countered and that its net result in warming is zero.

To answer many of the back and forths in this thread about theoretical's...

All matter radiates in all directions.. What that LWIR does is still an unknown and empirical evidence has not yet shown what it does and how it does it. All modeling of this, to date, fails empirical review (doesn't mesh with reality and observed behavior of matter).

Cooler black bodies can not warm warmer ones. Violates the laws of thermal energy travel.

Entropy (energy release) is dependent on the matter doing the transport and the temperature gradient of the matter or different types of matter through which it passes.

Grey Bodies are cooler than black and thus their effect is null. (LWIR wave length is the main reason, theoretical energy contained in the wave)

That is the problem with luke warmers.. You can not differentiate what is naturally caused and what is GHG caused.

Since I'm not in favor of wasting trillions on windmills and I don't want to damage our economy to drop temps in 2080 by 0.1 degrees, I have the luxury of not caring which portion of any potential increase in temperature is due to fossil fuel burning.

You have no clue as to what the origination of downward radiation in the LWIR band comes from.

Please, enlighten me.

All matter radiates in all directions..

Excellent! Please convince SSDD and jc, so I can stop wasting my time trying to educate them.

Please, enlighten me.

No one knows. As I previously pointed out, no model can show how much or why.. What the current study is doing is taking sections of our atmosphere and assessing what makes it through, at what wavelength, and what is being reflected or re-emitted towards the ground . Then applying what the reaction of other systems is on it. What they are finding is stunning...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

we supplied numerous sources of data for the measurement of radiation coming from the atmosphere down to the surface. you refuse to acknowledge them or give any explanation as to why you reject them except to throw out unsubstantiated declaritive statements such as 'fooled by instrumentation'.

Actually I never said fooled by instruments that was SSDD. I never said radiation didn't come towards the surface I said, back radiation

I never said radiation didn't come towards the surface I said, back radiation

Why is "regular" radiation able to move downward, toward the surface,
but "back" radiation can't manage to do the same?

That is the problem with luke warmers.. You can not differentiate what is naturally caused and what is GHG caused. You have no clue as to what the origination of downward radiation in the LWIR band comes from. You also can not show, by empirical evidence, how it affects the earths open atmosphere.

The null hypothesis eviscerates the global warming theroy as, ONE, you can not show what is man made and what is naturally occurring down ward LWIR and, TWO, The theoretical amounts you say are being retained in the system are not causing measurable changes outside of what is expected from NATURAL VARIATION.

The fact that a mid troposphere hot spot has not manifested itself, as identified by IPCC documents and is the theoretical "bottle neck", disproves the DWLWIR theroy.

Now why would this not occur?

Convection and transport in the water cycle. Several studies are in progress showing that the amount of LWIR emanating from the upper troposphere has increased by 2.2%(point of water renucleation and LWIR release at a much longer wave length) and mid troposphere bandpass has declined by 1.3 - 2.2% (done by balloon direct measurement). This energy had to go somewhere. The earth is acting like the earth and uses a secondary route of energy release keeping the energy in/out balance despite mans influence. The boys over at the Boulder, Co lab have been keeping a lid on this work in progress as it smashes the AGW hypothesis to bits.

IT shows that down ward LWIR is being countered and that its net result in warming is zero.

To answer many of the back and forths in this thread about theoretical's...

All matter radiates in all directions.. What that LWIR does is still an unknown and empirical evidence has not yet shown what it does and how it does it. All modeling of this, to date, fails empirical review (doesn't mesh with reality and observed behavior of matter).

Cooler black bodies can not warm warmer ones. Violates the laws of thermal energy travel.

Entropy (energy release) is dependent on the matter doing the transport and the temperature gradient of the matter or different types of matter through which it passes.

Grey Bodies are cooler than black and thus their effect is null. (LWIR wave length is the main reason, theoretical energy contained in the wave)

That is the problem with luke warmers.. You can not differentiate what is naturally caused and what is GHG caused.

Since I'm not in favor of wasting trillions on windmills and I don't want to damage our economy to drop temps in 2080 by 0.1 degrees, I have the luxury of not caring which portion of any potential increase in temperature is due to fossil fuel burning.

You have no clue as to what the origination of downward radiation in the LWIR band comes from.

Please, enlighten me.

All matter radiates in all directions..

Excellent! Please convince SSDD and jc, so I can stop wasting my time trying to educate them.

Please, enlighten me.

No one knows. As I previously pointed out, no model can show how much or why..

No one knows.

No one knows where LWIR comes from? You're joking, right?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Actually I never said fooled by instruments that was SSDD. I never said radiation didn't come towards the surface I said, back radiation

I never said radiation didn't come towards the surface I said, back radiation

Why is "regular" radiation able to move downward, toward the surface,
but "back" radiation can't manage to do the same?

That is the problem with luke warmers.. You can not differentiate what is naturally caused and what is GHG caused. You have no clue as to what the origination of downward radiation in the LWIR band comes from. You also can not show, by empirical evidence, how it affects the earths open atmosphere.

The null hypothesis eviscerates the global warming theroy as, ONE, you can not show what is man made and what is naturally occurring down ward LWIR and, TWO, The theoretical amounts you say are being retained in the system are not causing measurable changes outside of what is expected from NATURAL VARIATION.

The fact that a mid troposphere hot spot has not manifested itself, as identified by IPCC documents and is the theoretical "bottle neck", disproves the DWLWIR theroy.

Now why would this not occur?

Convection and transport in the water cycle. Several studies are in progress showing that the amount of LWIR emanating from the upper troposphere has increased by 2.2%(point of water renucleation and LWIR release at a much longer wave length) and mid troposphere bandpass has declined by 1.3 - 2.2% (done by balloon direct measurement). This energy had to go somewhere. The earth is acting like the earth and uses a secondary route of energy release keeping the energy in/out balance despite mans influence. The boys over at the Boulder, Co lab have been keeping a lid on this work in progress as it smashes the AGW hypothesis to bits.

IT shows that down ward LWIR is being countered and that its net result in warming is zero.

To answer many of the back and forths in this thread about theoretical's...

All matter radiates in all directions.. What that LWIR does is still an unknown and empirical evidence has not yet shown what it does and how it does it. All modeling of this, to date, fails empirical review (doesn't mesh with reality and observed behavior of matter).

Cooler black bodies can not warm warmer ones. Violates the laws of thermal energy travel.

Entropy (energy release) is dependent on the matter doing the transport and the temperature gradient of the matter or different types of matter through which it passes.

Grey Bodies are cooler than black and thus their effect is null. (LWIR wave length is the main reason, theoretical energy contained in the wave)

That is the problem with luke warmers.. You can not differentiate what is naturally caused and what is GHG caused.

Since I'm not in favor of wasting trillions on windmills and I don't want to damage our economy to drop temps in 2080 by 0.1 degrees, I have the luxury of not caring which portion of any potential increase in temperature is due to fossil fuel burning.

You have no clue as to what the origination of downward radiation in the LWIR band comes from.

Please, enlighten me.

All matter radiates in all directions..

Excellent! Please convince SSDD and jc, so I can stop wasting my time trying to educate them.

Please, enlighten me.

No one knows. As I previously pointed out, no model can show how much or why..

No one knows.

No one knows where LWIR comes from? You're joking, right?

Love the straw man argument.. the twisting of what I said.. We know what wavelengths are most likely associated with what gases. What we don't know is how much of it is naturally occurring and how much of it is man caused.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I never said radiation didn't come towards the surface I said, back radiation

Why is "regular" radiation able to move downward, toward the surface,
but "back" radiation can't manage to do the same?

That is the problem with luke warmers.. You can not differentiate what is naturally caused and what is GHG caused. You have no clue as to what the origination of downward radiation in the LWIR band comes from. You also can not show, by empirical evidence, how it affects the earths open atmosphere.

The null hypothesis eviscerates the global warming theroy as, ONE, you can not show what is man made and what is naturally occurring down ward LWIR and, TWO, The theoretical amounts you say are being retained in the system are not causing measurable changes outside of what is expected from NATURAL VARIATION.

The fact that a mid troposphere hot spot has not manifested itself, as identified by IPCC documents and is the theoretical "bottle neck", disproves the DWLWIR theroy.

Now why would this not occur?

Convection and transport in the water cycle. Several studies are in progress showing that the amount of LWIR emanating from the upper troposphere has increased by 2.2%(point of water renucleation and LWIR release at a much longer wave length) and mid troposphere bandpass has declined by 1.3 - 2.2% (done by balloon direct measurement). This energy had to go somewhere. The earth is acting like the earth and uses a secondary route of energy release keeping the energy in/out balance despite mans influence. The boys over at the Boulder, Co lab have been keeping a lid on this work in progress as it smashes the AGW hypothesis to bits.

IT shows that down ward LWIR is being countered and that its net result in warming is zero.

To answer many of the back and forths in this thread about theoretical's...

All matter radiates in all directions.. What that LWIR does is still an unknown and empirical evidence has not yet shown what it does and how it does it. All modeling of this, to date, fails empirical review (doesn't mesh with reality and observed behavior of matter).

Cooler black bodies can not warm warmer ones. Violates the laws of thermal energy travel.

Entropy (energy release) is dependent on the matter doing the transport and the temperature gradient of the matter or different types of matter through which it passes.

Grey Bodies are cooler than black and thus their effect is null. (LWIR wave length is the main reason, theoretical energy contained in the wave)

That is the problem with luke warmers.. You can not differentiate what is naturally caused and what is GHG caused.

Since I'm not in favor of wasting trillions on windmills and I don't want to damage our economy to drop temps in 2080 by 0.1 degrees, I have the luxury of not caring which portion of any potential increase in temperature is due to fossil fuel burning.

You have no clue as to what the origination of downward radiation in the LWIR band comes from.

Please, enlighten me.

All matter radiates in all directions..

Excellent! Please convince SSDD and jc, so I can stop wasting my time trying to educate them.

Please, enlighten me.

No one knows. As I previously pointed out, no model can show how much or why..

No one knows.

No one knows where LWIR comes from? You're joking, right?

Love the straw man argument.. the twisting of what I said.. We know what wavelengths are most likely associated with what gases. What we don't know is how much of it is naturally occurring and how much of it is man caused.

Straw man? LOL!

You have no clue as to what the origination of downward radiation in the LWIR band comes from.

Please, enlighten me.

Tell me, what are the choices for the origin of "downward radiation in the LWIR band"?

What we don't know is how much of it is naturally occurring and how much of it is man caused.

So what you're saying now is that my response to your confused, original statement, wasn't a straw man?

 

[Billy_Bob]

That is the problem with luke warmers.. You can not differentiate what is naturally caused and what is GHG caused. You have no clue as to what the origination of downward radiation in the LWIR band comes from. You also can not show, by empirical evidence, how it affects the earths open atmosphere.

The null hypothesis eviscerates the global warming theroy as, ONE, you can not show what is man made and what is naturally occurring down ward LWIR and, TWO, The theoretical amounts you say are being retained in the system are not causing measurable changes outside of what is expected from NATURAL VARIATION.

The fact that a mid troposphere hot spot has not manifested itself, as identified by IPCC documents and is the theoretical "bottle neck", disproves the DWLWIR theroy.

Now why would this not occur?

Convection and transport in the water cycle. Several studies are in progress showing that the amount of LWIR emanating from the upper troposphere has increased by 2.2%(point of water renucleation and LWIR release at a much longer wave length) and mid troposphere bandpass has declined by 1.3 - 2.2% (done by balloon direct measurement). This energy had to go somewhere. The earth is acting like the earth and uses a secondary route of energy release keeping the energy in/out balance despite mans influence. The boys over at the Boulder, Co lab have been keeping a lid on this work in progress as it smashes the AGW hypothesis to bits.

IT shows that down ward LWIR is being countered and that its net result in warming is zero.

To answer many of the back and forths in this thread about theoretical's...

All matter radiates in all directions.. What that LWIR does is still an unknown and empirical evidence has not yet shown what it does and how it does it. All modeling of this, to date, fails empirical review (doesn't mesh with reality and observed behavior of matter).

Cooler black bodies can not warm warmer ones. Violates the laws of thermal energy travel.

Entropy (energy release) is dependent on the matter doing the transport and the temperature gradient of the matter or different types of matter through which it passes.

Grey Bodies are cooler than black and thus their effect is null. (LWIR wave length is the main reason, theoretical energy contained in the wave)

That is the problem with luke warmers.. You can not differentiate what is naturally caused and what is GHG caused.

Since I'm not in favor of wasting trillions on windmills and I don't want to damage our economy to drop temps in 2080 by 0.1 degrees, I have the luxury of not caring which portion of any potential increase in temperature is due to fossil fuel burning.

You have no clue as to what the origination of downward radiation in the LWIR band comes from.

Please, enlighten me.

All matter radiates in all directions..

Excellent! Please convince SSDD and jc, so I can stop wasting my time trying to educate them.

Please, enlighten me.

No one knows. As I previously pointed out, no model can show how much or why..

No one knows.

No one knows where LWIR comes from? You're joking, right?

Love the straw man argument.. the twisting of what I said.. We know what wavelengths are most likely associated with what gases. What we don't know is how much of it is naturally occurring and how much of it is man caused.

Straw man? LOL!

You have no clue as to what the origination of downward radiation in the LWIR band comes from.

Please, enlighten me.

Tell me, what are the choices for the origin of "downward radiation in the LWIR band"?

What we don't know is how much of it is naturally occurring and how much of it is man caused.

So what you're saying now is that my response to your confused, original statement, wasn't a straw man?

Got to love your circular logic...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is the problem with luke warmers.. You can not differentiate what is naturally caused and what is GHG caused.

Since I'm not in favor of wasting trillions on windmills and I don't want to damage our economy to drop temps in 2080 by 0.1 degrees, I have the luxury of not caring which portion of any potential increase in temperature is due to fossil fuel burning.

You have no clue as to what the origination of downward radiation in the LWIR band comes from.

Please, enlighten me.

All matter radiates in all directions..

Excellent! Please convince SSDD and jc, so I can stop wasting my time trying to educate them.

Please, enlighten me.

No one knows. As I previously pointed out, no model can show how much or why..

No one knows.

No one knows where LWIR comes from? You're joking, right?

Love the straw man argument.. the twisting of what I said.. We know what wavelengths are most likely associated with what gases. What we don't know is how much of it is naturally occurring and how much of it is man caused.

Straw man? LOL!

You have no clue as to what the origination of downward radiation in the LWIR band comes from.

Please, enlighten me.

Tell me, what are the choices for the origin of "downward radiation in the LWIR band"?

What we don't know is how much of it is naturally occurring and how much of it is man caused.

So what you're saying now is that my response to your confused, original statement, wasn't a straw man?

Got to love your circular logic...

And your confused understanding of straw man.