For Crickham- Critique of GISS Urbanization Adjustments

Do you have a rational point?

And - have you figured out what to do with all those source code and climate data files?
 
Last edited:
Good to see you have some self-awareness, SSDD, as you seem to have no foundational belief other than "whatever helps me hate liberals is good". If the big lie helps your cause, you lie. If faking data helps your cause, then you fake.

Again, you prove that you don't have a clue...you are the hater around here...you exude humorless bitterness with every post. Hate isn't my style and I don't do it. Hate burns you up and dries you out and leaves you bitter...just look in the mirror and see what hate has done to you.
 
Dude for the umpteenth time, show the experiment that proves your religion. It's very simple right?

Dude, for the umpteenth time, stop lying. You've been shown such experiments and you - and everyone else here - knows it.

No, you guys have provided experiments that show various phenomena....but none that demonstrate anything like a greenhouse effect or that 100 or even 200 additional ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere could cause warming. The liar here is you.
 
Dude, for the umpteenth time, stop lying. You've been shown such experiments and you - and everyone else here - knows it.

I believe it should be possible to set up an experiment that shows a small amount of warming for a small amount of increased CO2 but that doesnt mean I have seen one. show me because I find it hard to believe that I missed it somehow.

I also find it hard to believe that you could have missed such a thing, assuming you actually looked and assuming you're being honest.

So post it again...or do you prefer not to have your pseudosciecne shredded again as it has with every side show "experiment" you have posted?
 
I have, but you've all chosen to simply lie about it. I don't play with liars. So, I won't be playing with you.

You've never posted it once.

None of us have ever seen this imaginary experiment you keep telling us you've posted

Are you delusional? Suffering hallucinations?

Nah..he is just a liar. There are not delusions (other than his belief in AGW) and there are no hallucinations...he is just a liar...simple as that.
 
Dude, for the umpteenth time, stop lying. You've been shown such experiments and you - and everyone else here - knows it.



I believe it should be possible to set up an experiment that shows a small amount of warming for a small amount of increased CO2 but that doesnt mean I have seen one. show me because I find it hard to believe that I missed it somehow.

I am looking for evidence that CO2 filled with infrared waves can act like a sun! Does CO2 hold heat, yes, I believe that, but it can't act like the sun. It may release its infrared waves, but it does so in all direction. So, when does it release the waves and then how can something get hotter because of that since it can't get hotter than it was? Maybe remain the same temperature, but getting hotter than it got? Nope sorry can't accept that, that would mean it is sun like.

there are many energy transfer mechanisms going on in the atmosphere, especially related to H2O but I will give a quick summary of the two types of radiative transfer that you asked about.

in an atmosphere with no greenhouse gases there would still be heat conducted away from the surface to the molecules in the atmosphere as increased molecular velocity. these molecules then collide with each other which passes that kinetic energy away from the surface on average, causing a gradient of velocities that decreases as you move away from the source (temperature is the measurement of molecular velocities). but the collisions are not perfectly elastic. deformations in the electron cloud of colliding molecules store some potential energy which is then released when the molecules move away from each other. this is how blackbody radiation is created. low velocity, or glancing collisions release low energy IR photons. high velocity, head on collisions form much higher energy photons. the blackbody photons are released in all directions, so some go back to the surface and that energy is recycled.

in an atmosphere with greenhouse gases there is not only conducted heat from the surface but also some portion of the surface's radiation is captured instead of just escaping into space. this becomes part of the pool of energy available to create blackbody photons from molecular collisions, which means even more energy returned to the surface to be recycled.

there is one more aspect to greenhouse gases absorbing surface IR. a single molecule that absorbs a surface IR photon will release the same type of photon in a random direction, sometimes back to the surface. this is not a 'perpetual motion machine' because momentum has been transferred. most CO2 molecules will not release an absorbed IR photon in a direct fashion because the residence time in the molecule before release is orders of magnitude longer than the time between collisions with other molecules in the atmosphere. in essence the IR absorbed by GHGs is mostly thermalized into atmospheric temperature, and hence into blackbody radiation which recycles some of the energy back to the surface.

this is a simplified explanation meant to distinguish between single molecule interactions, and molecular interactions as a cohort.


for those interested, Trenberth's cartoon shows 165W solar heating, with 400W surface radiation going up and 335W atmospheric radiation coming down. 40W directly escapes to space and another 25W 'leaks out'. the other 100W is transported by convection and the various water cycles. the majority of the surface heat already leaves through non-GHG radiation outlets. we are arguing over a disturbance in the 25W portion which is easily compensated for by the other mechanisms already in place. there will be no 'runaway' warming.
 
there are many energy transfer mechanisms going on in the atmosphere, especially related to H2O but I will give a quick summary of the two types of radiative transfer that you asked about.

in an atmosphere with no greenhouse gases there would still be heat conducted away from the surface to the molecules in the atmosphere as increased molecular velocity. these molecules then collide with each other which passes that kinetic energy away from the surface on average, causing a gradient of velocities that decreases as you move away from the source (temperature is the measurement of molecular velocities). but the collisions are not perfectly elastic. deformations in the electron cloud of colliding molecules store some potential energy which is then released when the molecules move away from each other. this is how blackbody radiation is created. low velocity, or glancing collisions release low energy IR photons. high velocity, head on collisions form much higher energy photons. the blackbody photons are released in all directions, so some go back to the surface and that energy is recycled.

in an atmosphere with greenhouse gases there is not only conducted heat from the surface but also some portion of the surface's radiation is captured instead of just escaping into space. this becomes part of the pool of energy available to create blackbody photons from molecular collisions, which means even more energy returned to the surface to be recycled.

there is one more aspect to greenhouse gases absorbing surface IR. a single molecule that absorbs a surface IR photon will release the same type of photon in a random direction, sometimes back to the surface. this is not a 'perpetual motion machine' because momentum has been transferred. most CO2 molecules will not release an absorbed IR photon in a direct fashion because the residence time in the molecule before release is orders of magnitude longer than the time between collisions with other molecules in the atmosphere. in essence the IR absorbed by GHGs is mostly thermalized into atmospheric temperature, and hence into blackbody radiation which recycles some of the energy back to the surface.

this is a simplified explanation meant to distinguish between single molecule interactions, and molecular interactions as a cohort.


for those interested, Trenberth's cartoon shows 165W solar heating, with 400W surface radiation going up and 335W atmospheric radiation coming down. 40W directly escapes to space and another 25W 'leaks out'. the other 100W is transported by convection and the various water cycles. the majority of the surface heat already leaves through non-GHG radiation outlets. we are arguing over a disturbance in the 25W portion which is easily compensated for by the other mechanisms already in place. there will be no 'runaway' warming.

Not bad at all except for a couple of wee points. It would help if you'd capitalize your sentences but I presume your working on a tablet or some such.

1) This piece: " Low velocity, or glancing collisions release low energy IR photons.High velocity, head on collisions form much higher energy photons. The blackbody photons are released in all directions, so some go back to the surface and that energy is recycled." gives the impression that low energy IR is somehow NOT being released in random directions. As you know, it is.
2) "We are arguing over a disturbance in the 25W portion which is easily compensated for by the other mechanisms already in place. There will be no 'runaway' warming."
How about you identify the "other mechanisms already in place"?
 
Last edited:
Who do you believe has been presenting temperatures with greater resolution than justified?

And what effect would that have on the observed trends? Would you expect significantly different response to a report of 0.754C warming than you'd get from a report of 0.75C warming?
 
Who do you believe has been presenting temperatures with greater resolution than justified?

And what effect would that have on the observed trends? Would you expect significantly different response to a report of 0.754C warming than you'd get from a report of 0.75C warming?


somewhere on one of these threads SSDD talked about propaganda, and how the information could be true or false but it was improperly used to imply a conclusion that was not necessarily supported by the said information.

the target group for insignificant extra figures is YOU! look at the shiny new dataset with an extra figure! it must be better and more accurate because it is more precise.

they are neither more precise or accurate than the precision and accuracy of the original data. posting up data in 0.001 implies that the 0.01 number is correct. it is not.

and every time they bring out a new set of figures you just accept them. you forget yesterday's data or last month's data as if it never was published. have you already wiped today's information because you know tomorrow's will be different?
 
How often have you noted me waxing poetic about an additional digit of precision? You haven't. And how are these datasets changed by publishing additional decimals that actually did arise from calculations? They aren't.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top