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

[IanC]

Speaking of which, you have stated that IR radiation can't be measured at ambient temperature. Dozens of times, perhaps hundreds of times. Prove it.

No..Ian...I never made such a claim...one more instance of you making up an argument to rail against...I said that back radiation has not (because it does not exist) been measured at ambient temperature.

You have been given examples of instruments that profess to measure IR at ambient temperature and you then state 'fooled by instrumentation '. Prove that these instruments are not measuring IR. What are they measuring then? Prove it.

Already have.

You say these instruments are just measuring temperature differences or electric current produced by thermophile. Prove that these are not caused by incident IR. Prove it. Will you also be asking that Einstein be stripped of his Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect?

Don't need to...having proved that they are not measuring back radiation.

It's time for you to start proving these unsupported declarative statements that you make all the time. Prove it!

Unlike you ian, proof exists in support of my position...that is why I hold my position...unlike you who relies entirely on unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical models....you don't have the first bit of proof to support any of what you believe...while I tend to only believe what is supportable by observable, measurable, testable, empirical data.

More bullshit. Prove that the atmosphere doesn't send radiation to the surface. Or that the surface controls the possibility of radiation emission.

Prove it! At least try to make a coherent explanation of your absurd beliefs.

 

[PredFan]

My AR-5 doesn't care at all about the Global Warming scam.

 

[SSDD]

Yet another unsupported declarative statement with no evidence to back it up. Start providing the evidence.

In other words, PROVE IT.

Failure of a tropospheric hot spot to develop and then get warmer as atmospheric CO2 increases...


There, observable, measurable, empirical evidence in support of my statement...ie...proof.

You are making unsupported declarative statements again. You haven't described the the present tropospheric hotspot or the reasons why it is there. You haven't described the consensus position and predictions for the hotspot and how they diverge from reality. You haven't described the difference between how H2O affects the hotspot and how CO2 affects it.

You haven't said much of anything and you certainly haven't explained your position. Get on with it, explain your position and supply evidence to support it. Prove it.

Piss and moan..whine and cry...and on it goes with you....there is no tropospheric hot spot...ergo failure of the hypothesis....and as to consensus...haven't you, yourself stated that consensus is a political term...not scientific...so you are now a hypocrite in addition to all the other bad tendencies your beliefs are driving you to....

The fact that the hotspot isn't there...and isn't warming as CO2 increases is all the evidence I need in support of my statement...more is overkill...and there is plenty.

 

[SSDD]

More bullshit. Prove that the atmosphere doesn't send radiation to the surface. Or that the surface controls the possibility of radiation emission.

the fact that it can not be measured with instruments unless they are cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere is evidence enough...damned but you are becoming a pissy little bitch...is the failure of your hypothesis driving you mad?

 

[IanC]

More bullshit. Prove that the atmosphere doesn't send radiation to the surface. Or that the surface controls the possibility of radiation emission.

the fact that it can not be measured with instruments unless they are cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere is evidence enough...damned but you are becoming a pissy little bitch...is the failure of your hypothesis driving you mad?

None of the instruments I have shown are cooled. Top grade IR cameras are cooled to improve the resolution by removing background interference by waste heat.

Prove that instruments measuring downward radiation are not measuring radiation.

While you are at it, prove that radiation created by molecular collisions in the atmosphere are controlled by surface temperature. Does the surface temperature change the direction of the molecules, the speed of the molecules, or what? Please be specific.

I think it is actually YOU who is being a pissy little bitch because you don't like being called out on your bullshit. Start providing some facts and explanations rather than your usual unsupported declarative statements that you have no evidence to back up.

 

[SSDD]

None of the instruments I have shown are cooled.

And none of them are measuring IR...all that they are measuring is temperature changes in a thermopile which can be caused by any number of factors.

Top grade IR cameras are cooled to improve the resolution by removing background interference by waste heat.

Yes they are...and those of lesser quality that are uncooled operate via a microbolometer...again, nothing more than an internal thermopile with a thermometer to measure temperature differences which result in an electric current which is then "interpreted" via a contrived mathematical formula...so they aren't actually measuring IR...they are just measuring temperature changes of a thermopile.

Prove that instruments measuring downward radiation are not measuring radiation.

Do you actually believe an internal thermopile is measuring downward radiation? Honestly, do you really believe that? Do you believe an internal thermopile can distinguish any sort of IR from any other sort of IR? You think this device has any idea what is causing it to change temperature? Look at where your belief, and your efforts to defend it are leading you ian....you wouldn't be here trying to claim that the instrument below knows what it is measuring if you had been a bit skeptical in the first place.

While you are at it, prove that radiation created by molecular collisions in the atmosphere are controlled by surface temperature. Does the surface temperature change the direction of the molecules, the speed of the molecules, or what? Please be specific.

Why would I want to prove that....the surface temperature is the result of incoming radiation from the sun and the mass of the atmosphere. It is called the atmospheric thermal effect and gravity is the driver...

I think it is actually YOU who is being a pissy little bitch because you don't like being called out on your bullshit. Start providing some facts and explanations rather than your usual unsupported declarative statements that you have no evidence to back up.

All you are calling attention to ian is the fact that you can't provide any observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support what you believe...and every instrument you put forward claiming to measure what you believe...isn't.

 

[IanC]

Hmmmmm.... let's compare our arguments.

I put up a picture of my instrument working at a site, give some of the resulting data, then give you an independent study describing the performance of the instrument (it was the best at the time of the study).

You counter with "It's not measuring IR because the atmosphere doesn't radiate to the surface", and then post up a picture of a thermocouple from a gas fired boiler.

I explained how molecular collisions cause blackbody radiation in the atmosphere and how the energy got there in the first place, including gravity effects. The basic mechanisms of why everything radiates, in all directions, all the time.

You counter with "No it doesn't". When I asked you how the temperature of the warmer surface controls the molecular collisions in the cooler air above that creates the radiation you say "It's a mystery".

Does that just about cover it? My argument is based on physics principles and your's is based on your opinion and has to be taken on faith even though it goes against physics principles.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

None of the instruments I have shown are cooled.

And none of them are measuring IR...all that they are measuring is temperature changes in a thermopile which can be caused by any number of factors.

Top grade IR cameras are cooled to improve the resolution by removing background interference by waste heat.

Yes they are...and those of lesser quality that are uncooled operate via a microbolometer...again, nothing more than an internal thermopile with a thermometer to measure temperature differences which result in an electric current which is then "interpreted" via a contrived mathematical formula...so they aren't actually measuring IR...they are just measuring temperature changes of a thermopile.

Prove that instruments measuring downward radiation are not measuring radiation.

Do you actually believe an internal thermopile is measuring downward radiation? Honestly, do you really believe that? Do you believe an internal thermopile can distinguish any sort of IR from any other sort of IR? You think this device has any idea what is causing it to change temperature? Look at where your belief, and your efforts to defend it are leading you ian....you wouldn't be here trying to claim that the instrument below knows what it is measuring if you had been a bit skeptical in the first place.

While you are at it, prove that radiation created by molecular collisions in the atmosphere are controlled by surface temperature. Does the surface temperature change the direction of the molecules, the speed of the molecules, or what? Please be specific.

Why would I want to prove that....the surface temperature is the result of incoming radiation from the sun and the mass of the atmosphere. It is called the atmospheric thermal effect and gravity is the driver...

I think it is actually YOU who is being a pissy little bitch because you don't like being called out on your bullshit. Start providing some facts and explanations rather than your usual unsupported declarative statements that you have no evidence to back up.

All you are calling attention to ian is the fact that you can't provide any observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support what you believe...and every instrument you put forward claiming to measure what you believe...isn't.

...so they aren't actually measuring IR...they are just measuring temperature changes of a thermopile.

Temperature changes caused by IR. Unless you have a different, mysterious cause in mind?

 

[SSDD]

You counter with "It's not measuring IR because the atmosphere doesn't radiate to the surface", and then post up a picture of a thermocouple from a gas fired boiler.

There is little difference between the operation of thermocouples no matter what use they are put to......pissy much?

I explained how molecular collisions cause blackbody radiation in the atmosphere and how the energy got there in the first place, including gravity effects. The basic mechanisms of why everything radiates, in all directions, all the time.

You seem to think that because you "explain" something, that suddenly it becomes truth...or ever was truth..gasses are never black bodies...so much for your "explanation".

Does that just about cover it? My argument is based on physics principles and your's is based on your opinion and has to be taken on faith even though it goes against physics principles.

Your argument is based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...nothing more.

 

[IanC]

You counter with "It's not measuring IR because the atmosphere doesn't radiate to the surface", and then post up a picture of a thermocouple from a gas fired boiler.

There is little difference between the operation of thermocouples no matter what use they are put to......pissy much?

I explained how molecular collisions cause blackbody radiation in the atmosphere and how the energy got there in the first place, including gravity effects. The basic mechanisms of why everything radiates, in all directions, all the time.

You seem to think that because you "explain" something, that suddenly it becomes truth...or ever was truth..gasses are never black bodies...so much for your "explanation".

Does that just about cover it? My argument is based on physics principles and your's is based on your opinion and has to be taken on faith even though it goes against physics principles.

Your argument is based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...nothing more.

I never said that the atmosphere was a blackbody. The S-B equation contains a symbol for emissivity. The emissivity of the atmospheric has been observed and measured many times for different IR bands,etc. Do you not understand emissivity, or the role it plays in the S-B equations?

 

[SSDD]

You said that molecular collisions result in black body radiation in the atmosphere...simply not true since black body radiation only comes from black bodies...and gasses are never black bodies...ever.

And what I understand is that the S-B equation has no place in trying to explain energy movement in the atmosphere.

 

[IanC]

You said that molecular collisions result in black body radiation in the atmosphere...simply not true since black body radiation only comes from black bodies...and gasses are never black bodies...ever.

And what I understand is that the S-B equation has no place in trying to explain energy movement in the atmosphere.

Arguing semantics again? Would you prefer thermal radiation? I guess conduction is out for the atmosphere too because it is a compressible substance and would more aptly be called thermal dispersion.

I think it is funny that you argue the definitions of processes described by me, while failing to put forward any explanation of what you claim to be happening. Eg radiation caused by molecular collisions being controlled by the temperature of distant objects. How would that work in SSDD'S bizarro alternate universe?

Please, enlighten us, we're all ears.

 

[jc456]

You said that molecular collisions result in black body radiation in the atmosphere...simply not true since black body radiation only comes from black bodies...and gasses are never black bodies...ever.

And what I understand is that the S-B equation has no place in trying to explain energy movement in the atmosphere.

Arguing semantics again? Would you prefer thermal radiation? I guess conduction is out for the atmosphere too because it is a compressible substance and would more aptly be called thermal dispersion.

I think it is funny that you argue the definitions of processes described by me, while failing to put forward any explanation of what you claim to be happening. Eg radiation caused by molecular collisions being controlled by the temperature of distant objects. How would that work in SSDD'S bizarro alternate universe?

Please, enlighten us, we're all ears.

well for the umpteenth time, if there was a thermal radiation presence in the atmosphere, then there would be a hotspot there. Show us the hot spot!

 

[IanC]

Show us that you have even the vaguest inkling of what the tropospheric hotspot is, and how it pertains to atmospheric energy balances, and I will discuss it with you.

At this point I believe that you are just throwing out 'sciencey' words with no concept of what they mean.

 

[jc456]

Show us that you have even the vaguest inkling of what the tropospheric hotspot is, and how it pertains to atmospheric energy balances, and I will discuss it with you.

At this point I believe that you are just throwing out 'sciencey' words with no concept of what they mean.

well in the troposphere, The troposphere contains all of the Earth's weather and 99 percent of its water vapor. Thickest over the equator and thinnest over the north and south poles, the troposphere contains 75 percent of the mass of the Earth's atmosphere and is largely responsible for protecting as well as insulating the planet.

is the top of the troposphere hot or cold?

 

[IanC]

Show us that you have even the vaguest inkling of what the tropospheric hotspot is, and how it pertains to atmospheric energy balances, and I will discuss it with you.

At this point I believe that you are just throwing out 'sciencey' words with no concept of what they mean.

well in the troposphere, The troposphere contains all of the Earth's weather and 99 percent of its water vapor. Thickest over the equator and thinnest over the north and south poles, the troposphere contains 75 percent of the mass of the Earth's atmosphere and is largely responsible for protecting as well as insulating the planet.

is the top of the troposphere hot or cold?

A start at least. Now what is considered the tropospheric hotspot? How does it relate to the lapse rate. Is height of the TH important?

 

[jc456]

Show us that you have even the vaguest inkling of what the tropospheric hotspot is, and how it pertains to atmospheric energy balances, and I will discuss it with you.

At this point I believe that you are just throwing out 'sciencey' words with no concept of what they mean.

well in the troposphere, The troposphere contains all of the Earth's weather and 99 percent of its water vapor. Thickest over the equator and thinnest over the north and south poles, the troposphere contains 75 percent of the mass of the Earth's atmosphere and is largely responsible for protecting as well as insulating the planet.

is the top of the troposphere hot or cold?

A start at least. Now what is considered the tropospheric hotspot? How does it relate to the lapse rate. Is height of the TH important?

first answer the question, is the top of the troposphere warm or cold? It was in my post and you didn't answer. seems you always wish to avoid answering and instead ask questions. I owe you nothing bubba. if you choose not to answer, just points at the inaccuracy of your thought process. Thanks,

 

[IanC]

Show us that you have even the vaguest inkling of what the tropospheric hotspot is, and how it pertains to atmospheric energy balances, and I will discuss it with you.

At this point I believe that you are just throwing out 'sciencey' words with no concept of what they mean.

well in the troposphere, The troposphere contains all of the Earth's weather and 99 percent of its water vapor. Thickest over the equator and thinnest over the north and south poles, the troposphere contains 75 percent of the mass of the Earth's atmosphere and is largely responsible for protecting as well as insulating the planet.

is the top of the troposphere hot or cold?

A start at least. Now what is considered the tropospheric hotspot? How does it relate to the lapse rate. Is height of the TH important?

first answer the question, is the top of the troposphere warm or cold? It was in my post and you didn't answer. seems you always wish to avoid answering and instead ask questions. I owe you nothing bubba. if you choose not to answer, just points at the inaccuracy of your thought process. Thanks,

I dont think you understand what the tropospheric hotspot is, or how it should change with the warmers's climate models, or what it has done in reality. until you demonstrate some basic knowledge I am going to decline to argue the topic with you.

not that long ago you were making vague generalizations about (I think) gravity and surface temps. I encouraged you to champion your cause and fill in the details. but you immediately dropped the topic, presumably because you were unable to articulate your position or you were just too lazy to make the effort.

is the top of the troposphere hot or cold?

the answer is yes. satisfied?

 

[jc456]

Show us that you have even the vaguest inkling of what the tropospheric hotspot is, and how it pertains to atmospheric energy balances, and I will discuss it with you.

At this point I believe that you are just throwing out 'sciencey' words with no concept of what they mean.

well in the troposphere, The troposphere contains all of the Earth's weather and 99 percent of its water vapor. Thickest over the equator and thinnest over the north and south poles, the troposphere contains 75 percent of the mass of the Earth's atmosphere and is largely responsible for protecting as well as insulating the planet.

is the top of the troposphere hot or cold?

A start at least. Now what is considered the tropospheric hotspot? How does it relate to the lapse rate. Is height of the TH important?

first answer the question, is the top of the troposphere warm or cold? It was in my post and you didn't answer. seems you always wish to avoid answering and instead ask questions. I owe you nothing bubba. if you choose not to answer, just points at the inaccuracy of your thought process. Thanks,

I dont think you understand what the tropospheric hotspot is, or how it should change with the warmers's climate models, or what it has done in reality. until you demonstrate some basic knowledge I am going to decline to argue the topic with you.

not that long ago you were making vague generalizations about (I think) gravity and surface temps. I encouraged you to champion your cause and fill in the details. but you immediately dropped the topic, presumably because you were unable to articulate your position or you were just too lazy to make the effort.

is the top of the troposphere hot or cold?

the answer is yes. satisfied?

I would prefer that you merely answer the question asked. avoidance means I'm right.

 

[IanC]

Show us that you have even the vaguest inkling of what the tropospheric hotspot is, and how it pertains to atmospheric energy balances, and I will discuss it with you.

At this point I believe that you are just throwing out 'sciencey' words with no concept of what they mean.

well in the troposphere, The troposphere contains all of the Earth's weather and 99 percent of its water vapor. Thickest over the equator and thinnest over the north and south poles, the troposphere contains 75 percent of the mass of the Earth's atmosphere and is largely responsible for protecting as well as insulating the planet.

is the top of the troposphere hot or cold?

A start at least. Now what is considered the tropospheric hotspot? How does it relate to the lapse rate. Is height of the TH important?

first answer the question, is the top of the troposphere warm or cold? It was in my post and you didn't answer. seems you always wish to avoid answering and instead ask questions. I owe you nothing bubba. if you choose not to answer, just points at the inaccuracy of your thought process. Thanks,

I dont think you understand what the tropospheric hotspot is, or how it should change with the warmers's climate models, or what it has done in reality. until you demonstrate some basic knowledge I am going to decline to argue the topic with you.

not that long ago you were making vague generalizations about (I think) gravity and surface temps. I encouraged you to champion your cause and fill in the details. but you immediately dropped the topic, presumably because you were unable to articulate your position or you were just too lazy to make the effort.

is the top of the troposphere hot or cold?

the answer is yes. satisfied?

I would prefer that you merely answer the question asked. avoidance means I'm right.

I answered your question! in a very similar fashion to the way that you and SSDD answer questions. you guys refuse to answer direct and specific questions inspired by your own unsupported declarative statements.

you say "instruments cannot measure backradiation without being cooled"

I say " which instruments are cooled and what is the reason why they are cooled"

you respond with "tropospheric hotspot"