Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[Old Rocks]

I see. All the satellites went dead in 2016? Silly Billy, your ass must really be sore from all the nonsense you are pulled out of it. LOL

 

[Billy_Bob]

I see. All the satellites went dead in 2016? Silly Billy, your ass must really be sore from all the nonsense you are pulled out of it. LOL

Old Fraud is feeling a bit butt chapped from all the spankings... LOL

Hows it feel to be on the lying side of history.. It's finally coming back to ride your ass.. And it didn't bring any KY jelly..

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Consider measuring the surface temperature of the water in Lake Michigan in shallow water on the north shore and similarly on the south shore on a warm, sunny, windless day. One would not really expect those measurements to be representative of the water temperature in the middle of the lake. However, the approach demonstrated by Stokes would interpolate between those two distant points and proclaim to have an accurate estimate of everything in between. The only thing one should have any confidence in is the temperature of the shallows. This is the difference between a ‘mathematician’ crunching numbers and a physical scientist examining the data for reasonableness."

The above quote is damn funny.. it very astutely shows why the alarmists fail.. They ASSUME to much and much of what they ASSUME is fantasy...

Source

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Realistically, when dung is mixed with high quality food in a blender, the former degrades the whole. Climate science takes the opposite approach and claims that good data mixed with crap data makes the latter good."

Source

Bwhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[Billy_Bob]

IF the argument is that the error in extrapolating/interpolating gridded anomalies is roughly 1-2 degree C, then I might buy that.

However, we are asked to believe that this technique produces an answer for the whole globe that is within 0.1 of a degree or better (see claims that one month or the other is the “hottest” by .04 degrees). That is pure nonsense, even if we had an accurate thermometer in every 5 sq miles over the entire earth, much less with the patchwork we do have. It’s why the only answer is satellite measurements, and even they can’t claim very high precision.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It absurd that the whole premise of CAGW as ‘settled’ science is based on a sensitivity with +/- 50% uncertainty. On top of this is even more uncertainty from the fabricated RCP scenarios. Even worse is the low end of the presumed range isn’t low enough to accommodate the maximum effect as limited by the laws of physics!

The actual limits are readily calculated. The upper limit is the sensitivity of an ideal BB at 255K (about 0.3C per W/m^2) and the lower limit is the sensitivity of an ideal BB at the surface temperature of 288K (about 0.2C per W/m^2). Interestingly enough, the sensitivity of a BB at 255K is almost exactly the same as the sensitivity of a gray body at 288K with an emissivity of 0.61, where the emissivity is the ratio between the emissions at 255K and the emissions at 288K.

The physics clearly supports a sensitivity as large as 0.3C per W/m^2, yet nobody in the warmest camp can articulate what physics enables the sensitivity to be as much as 4 times larger. They always invoke positive feedback, which not only isn’t physics, it assumes an implicit source of Joules powering the gain which is the source of the extra energy they claim arises to increase the temperature by as much as 1.2C per W/m^2.

To illustrate the abject absurdity of the IPCC’s upper limit, a 1.2C increase in the surface temperature increases its emissions by more than 6 W/m^2. If emissions are not replenished with new energy, the surface must cool until total forcing == total emissions. 1 W/m^2 of the 6 W/m^2 is replaced by the W/m^2 of forcing said to affect the increase. The other 5 W/m^2 have no identifiable origin except for the presumed, and missing, power supply. The same analysis shows that even the IPCC’s lower limit is beyond bogus.

"To illustrate the abject absurdity of the IPCC’s upper limit, a 1.2C increase in the surface temperature increases its emissions by more than 6 W/m^2. If emissions are not replenished with new energy, the surface must cool until total forcing == total emissions."

Just Wow.... Took a bit to run this through SB and the equations but the good Dr is right on the money.... The IPCC forgings are total fantasy...

Source

 

[elektra]

Mods: Please move this thread to the "Conspiracy Theory" section.

mods, kindly remove this comment, and mine as well, as being irrelevant to the topic and hence off subject.

 

[skookerasbil]

I see. All the satellites went dead in 2016? Silly Billy, your ass must really be sore from all the nonsense you are pulled out of it. LOL

Old Fraud is feeling a bit butt chapped from all the spankings... LOL

Hows it feel to be on the lying side of history.. It's finally coming back to ride your ass.. And it didn't bring any KY jelly..

Billy........we gotta admit. I think we've become a bit OCD with the daily spankings we dish out in here.. And gotta give some of these forum members their due. They are resilient mfo's.......to come in here each day and get freight trained and keep coming back.

I know when I started in here in 2009, things were bleak. Gore still commanded the respect of the public, Obama came into office. Climate change stories were on the TV all the time and I had expected the worst in terms of the science turning into an explosion of new renewable energy. Instead, virtually nothing has happened in all those years and now Trump is busy nuking CPP and Paris. And climate change stories even on cable TV are virtually non-existent in 2017. Its ended up being a rout.........and the winning has really ramped up in the past year ........has gotten to the point of giddy.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah, our Trumpanzess breaking their arms patting themselves on the back like the treasonous fat senile old clown himself. And, as usual, demonstrating their idiocy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ah, our Trumpanzess breaking their arms patting themselves on the back like the treasonous fat senile old clown himself. And, as usual, demonstrating their idiocy.

 

[IanC]

It absurd that the whole premise of CAGW as ‘settled’ science is based on a sensitivity with +/- 50% uncertainty. On top of this is even more uncertainty from the fabricated RCP scenarios. Even worse is the low end of the presumed range isn’t low enough to accommodate the maximum effect as limited by the laws of physics!

The actual limits are readily calculated. The upper limit is the sensitivity of an ideal BB at 255K (about 0.3C per W/m^2) and the lower limit is the sensitivity of an ideal BB at the surface temperature of 288K (about 0.2C per W/m^2). Interestingly enough, the sensitivity of a BB at 255K is almost exactly the same as the sensitivity of a gray body at 288K with an emissivity of 0.61, where the emissivity is the ratio between the emissions at 255K and the emissions at 288K.

The physics clearly supports a sensitivity as large as 0.3C per W/m^2, yet nobody in the warmest camp can articulate what physics enables the sensitivity to be as much as 4 times larger. They always invoke positive feedback, which not only isn’t physics, it assumes an implicit source of Joules powering the gain which is the source of the extra energy they claim arises to increase the temperature by as much as 1.2C per W/m^2.

To illustrate the abject absurdity of the IPCC’s upper limit, a 1.2C increase in the surface temperature increases its emissions by more than 6 W/m^2. If emissions are not replenished with new energy, the surface must cool until total forcing == total emissions. 1 W/m^2 of the 6 W/m^2 is replaced by the W/m^2 of forcing said to affect the increase. The other 5 W/m^2 have no identifiable origin except for the presumed, and missing, power supply. The same analysis shows that even the IPCC’s lower limit is beyond bogus.

"To illustrate the abject absurdity of the IPCC’s upper limit, a 1.2C increase in the surface temperature increases its emissions by more than 6 W/m^2. If emissions are not replenished with new energy, the surface must cool until total forcing == total emissions."

Just Wow.... Took a bit to run this through SB and the equations but the good Dr is right on the money.... The IPCC forgings are total fantasy...

Source

I think it is hilarious that you latch on to a comment like this with so much gusto.

You fail to realize the implications. Solar imput to the surface is less than 200w yet the surface radiates at roughly 400w. Where does the extra 200w come from? Hahahaha.

 

[SSDD]

It absurd that the whole premise of CAGW as ‘settled’ science is based on a sensitivity with +/- 50% uncertainty. On top of this is even more uncertainty from the fabricated RCP scenarios. Even worse is the low end of the presumed range isn’t low enough to accommodate the maximum effect as limited by the laws of physics!

The actual limits are readily calculated. The upper limit is the sensitivity of an ideal BB at 255K (about 0.3C per W/m^2) and the lower limit is the sensitivity of an ideal BB at the surface temperature of 288K (about 0.2C per W/m^2). Interestingly enough, the sensitivity of a BB at 255K is almost exactly the same as the sensitivity of a gray body at 288K with an emissivity of 0.61, where the emissivity is the ratio between the emissions at 255K and the emissions at 288K.

The physics clearly supports a sensitivity as large as 0.3C per W/m^2, yet nobody in the warmest camp can articulate what physics enables the sensitivity to be as much as 4 times larger. They always invoke positive feedback, which not only isn’t physics, it assumes an implicit source of Joules powering the gain which is the source of the extra energy they claim arises to increase the temperature by as much as 1.2C per W/m^2.

To illustrate the abject absurdity of the IPCC’s upper limit, a 1.2C increase in the surface temperature increases its emissions by more than 6 W/m^2. If emissions are not replenished with new energy, the surface must cool until total forcing == total emissions. 1 W/m^2 of the 6 W/m^2 is replaced by the W/m^2 of forcing said to affect the increase. The other 5 W/m^2 have no identifiable origin except for the presumed, and missing, power supply. The same analysis shows that even the IPCC’s lower limit is beyond bogus.

"To illustrate the abject absurdity of the IPCC’s upper limit, a 1.2C increase in the surface temperature increases its emissions by more than 6 W/m^2. If emissions are not replenished with new energy, the surface must cool until total forcing == total emissions."

Just Wow.... Took a bit to run this through SB and the equations but the good Dr is right on the money.... The IPCC forgings are total fantasy...

Source

I think it is hilarious that you latch on to a comment like this with so much gusto.

You fail to realize the implications. Solar imput to the surface is less than 200w yet the surface radiates at roughly 400w. Where does the extra 200w come from? Hahahaha.

You don't think the oceans store energy to be released at some time in the future?...and does the surface radiate 400wm/2 uniformly?....or do some places radiate more than others resulting in a homogenized, "average" being used as if it were a global figure like the average temperature?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

View attachment 151722
The divergence from reality is massive.. The hypothesis is therefore falsified.

Reality, the ultimate AGW Denier!

 

[IanC]

It absurd that the whole premise of CAGW as ‘settled’ science is based on a sensitivity with +/- 50% uncertainty. On top of this is even more uncertainty from the fabricated RCP scenarios. Even worse is the low end of the presumed range isn’t low enough to accommodate the maximum effect as limited by the laws of physics!

The actual limits are readily calculated. The upper limit is the sensitivity of an ideal BB at 255K (about 0.3C per W/m^2) and the lower limit is the sensitivity of an ideal BB at the surface temperature of 288K (about 0.2C per W/m^2). Interestingly enough, the sensitivity of a BB at 255K is almost exactly the same as the sensitivity of a gray body at 288K with an emissivity of 0.61, where the emissivity is the ratio between the emissions at 255K and the emissions at 288K.

The physics clearly supports a sensitivity as large as 0.3C per W/m^2, yet nobody in the warmest camp can articulate what physics enables the sensitivity to be as much as 4 times larger. They always invoke positive feedback, which not only isn’t physics, it assumes an implicit source of Joules powering the gain which is the source of the extra energy they claim arises to increase the temperature by as much as 1.2C per W/m^2.

To illustrate the abject absurdity of the IPCC’s upper limit, a 1.2C increase in the surface temperature increases its emissions by more than 6 W/m^2. If emissions are not replenished with new energy, the surface must cool until total forcing == total emissions. 1 W/m^2 of the 6 W/m^2 is replaced by the W/m^2 of forcing said to affect the increase. The other 5 W/m^2 have no identifiable origin except for the presumed, and missing, power supply. The same analysis shows that even the IPCC’s lower limit is beyond bogus.

"To illustrate the abject absurdity of the IPCC’s upper limit, a 1.2C increase in the surface temperature increases its emissions by more than 6 W/m^2. If emissions are not replenished with new energy, the surface must cool until total forcing == total emissions."

Just Wow.... Took a bit to run this through SB and the equations but the good Dr is right on the money.... The IPCC forgings are total fantasy...

Source

I think it is hilarious that you latch on to a comment like this with so much gusto.

You fail to realize the implications. Solar imput to the surface is less than 200w yet the surface radiates at roughly 400w. Where does the extra 200w come from? Hahahaha.

You don't think the oceans store energy to be released at some time in the future?...and does the surface radiate 400wm/2 uniformly?....or do some places radiate more than others resulting in a homogenized, "average" being used as if it were a global figure like the average temperature?

The point is...every spot on the surface is radiating more energy than it is getting from solar input. Where is the extra energy coming from?

I have repeatedly tried to explain it to you but to no avail.

And no, geothermal energy is not the answer.

 

[IanC]

You don't think the oceans store energy to be released at some time in the future?.

In that case where did the oceans get the energy from in the first place? And how long before they freeze up from losing 200w/m^2?

 

[Billy_Bob]

It absurd that the whole premise of CAGW as ‘settled’ science is based on a sensitivity with +/- 50% uncertainty. On top of this is even more uncertainty from the fabricated RCP scenarios. Even worse is the low end of the presumed range isn’t low enough to accommodate the maximum effect as limited by the laws of physics!

The actual limits are readily calculated. The upper limit is the sensitivity of an ideal BB at 255K (about 0.3C per W/m^2) and the lower limit is the sensitivity of an ideal BB at the surface temperature of 288K (about 0.2C per W/m^2). Interestingly enough, the sensitivity of a BB at 255K is almost exactly the same as the sensitivity of a gray body at 288K with an emissivity of 0.61, where the emissivity is the ratio between the emissions at 255K and the emissions at 288K.

The physics clearly supports a sensitivity as large as 0.3C per W/m^2, yet nobody in the warmest camp can articulate what physics enables the sensitivity to be as much as 4 times larger. They always invoke positive feedback, which not only isn’t physics, it assumes an implicit source of Joules powering the gain which is the source of the extra energy they claim arises to increase the temperature by as much as 1.2C per W/m^2.

To illustrate the abject absurdity of the IPCC’s upper limit, a 1.2C increase in the surface temperature increases its emissions by more than 6 W/m^2. If emissions are not replenished with new energy, the surface must cool until total forcing == total emissions. 1 W/m^2 of the 6 W/m^2 is replaced by the W/m^2 of forcing said to affect the increase. The other 5 W/m^2 have no identifiable origin except for the presumed, and missing, power supply. The same analysis shows that even the IPCC’s lower limit is beyond bogus.

"To illustrate the abject absurdity of the IPCC’s upper limit, a 1.2C increase in the surface temperature increases its emissions by more than 6 W/m^2. If emissions are not replenished with new energy, the surface must cool until total forcing == total emissions."

Just Wow.... Took a bit to run this through SB and the equations but the good Dr is right on the money.... The IPCC forgings are total fantasy...

Source

I think it is hilarious that you latch on to a comment like this with so much gusto.

You fail to realize the implications. Solar imput to the surface is less than 200w yet the surface radiates at roughly 400w. Where does the extra 200w come from? Hahahaha.

What is funny, is the fact you cant see how fuzzy the math is and how it does not reflect reality. If we were truly emitting 400w/m^2 at the surface, the earth would be an ice cube in short order. Doubling the output is the only way you can justify CO2, because it is not doing what you think it should..

 

[Billy_Bob]

What I find interesting is the fact that the energy budget doesn't take into account near surface water vapor. much of the problem with those calculations are the serious error bars when it comes to near surface atmospheric content and its roll.

As SSDD points out to you over and over again the tools used to determine the flow of energy must be cooled to -80 deg F to work properly and even then your not sure of the focal point of the readings. Being fooled by your tools is very common problem in climastrology..

 

[SSDD]

The point is...every spot on the surface is radiating more energy than it is getting from solar input. Where is the extra energy coming from?

I have repeatedly tried to explain it to you but to no avail.

And no, geothermal energy is not the answer.

You got any actual evidence of that, or is it just more "data" from unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models?

 

[SSDD]

What I find interesting is the fact that the energy budget doesn't take into account near surface water vapor. much of the problem with those calculations are the serious error bars when it comes to near surface atmospheric content and its roll.

As SSDD points out to you over and over again the tools used to determine the flow of energy must be cooled to -80 deg F to work properly and even then your not sure of the focal point of the readings. Being fooled by your tools is very common problem in climastrology..

And being fooled by people who are being fooled by their instrumentation is a rampant problem among the luke warmer community....and not recognizing that the output of mathematical models is somewhat different from reality.

Hell, Ian misses the boat right off the bat by accepting that the earth is receiving only 341wm2 from the sun...that flat earth model puts you off the track of realty from the start. It appears that he actually believes that greenhouse gasses increase the energy coming in from the sun. If we could only put that magic to use in a real way, our energy problem would be solved.

 

[IanC]

Hell, Ian misses the boat right off the bat by accepting that the earth is receiving only 341wm2 from the sun...that flat earth model puts you off the track of realty from the start.

Surely that is the least ambiguous measurement of all. The two dimensional disk shape is used to calculate how much sunlight is intercepted. We then use the area of the sphere to calculate the average input per unit of area. Most locations are not 'average', but so what? We were looking for the total input.

Satellites have measured all the regions of the Earth, both in reflected solar and in infrared. Those measurements can also be averaged. I am much less certain of those results.

In the process of turning highly ordered and energetic sunlight into diffuse low energy IR, useful energy has powered such things as atmospheric winds and ocean currents leaving behind crap IR that can't be used to perform any more work. Entropy has increased, the energy leaving the Earth is the same amount as entered it but it is now in a form that is relatively useless.

BTW, this is a main reason why climate models go off track. They keep the energy budget equal but ignore entropy. A watt of IR is not the same as a watt of sunlight.