Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....

[Billy_Bob]

There is no observed, measured evidence supporting the greenhouse gas hypothesis, nor has there ever been a peer reviewed, published paper that empirically measured and quantified the claimed warming due to increased CO2

The back radiation from greenhouse gases has been observed, measured evidence supporting the greenhouse gas theory.

Produce the paper showing that natural forces are not responsible for the warming... By the way, There is no mid-topospheric hot spot anywhere on earth, so your hypothesis fails as there is no evidence of heat/energy retention as stated in the hypothesis..

 

[Sunsettommy]

There is no observed, measured evidence supporting the greenhouse gas hypothesis, nor has there ever been a peer reviewed, published paper that empirically measured and quantified the claimed warming due to increased CO2

The back radiation from greenhouse gases has been observed, measured evidence supporting the greenhouse gas theory.

Produce the paper showing that natural forces are not responsible for the warming... By the way, There is no mid-topospheric hot spot anywhere on earth, so your hypothesis fails as there is no evidence of heat/energy retention as stated in the hypothesis..

His chart doesn't even begin to support the "greenhouse theory", all it shows that yes CO2 absorbs some IR, which is only about 6-8% of all IR outflow from the planet, Since Mankind produce an estimated 3% of the yearly CO2 emission flow, which leaves 97% to Nature and around 95% never absorbed as it leaves the planet, there is so little effect to brag about.

The chronically missing "hot spot" is fatal to the "greenhouse Theory", thus the whole stupid thing should have been dropped by now.

 

[Wuwei]

SSDD denies back radiation exists. EM theory disagrees. The chart shows back radiation was observed and measured. That is all I was addressing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There is no observed, measured evidence supporting the greenhouse gas hypothesis, nor has there ever been a peer reviewed, published paper that empirically measured and quantified the claimed warming due to increased CO2

The back radiation from greenhouse gases has been observed, measured evidence supporting the greenhouse gas theory.

That's great. So what's the expected temperature increase on planet Earth by increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM? What does your lab work show?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD denies back radiation exists. EM theory disagrees. The chart shows back radiation was observed and measured. That is all I was addressing.

The chart shows that radiation was measured with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...that isn't back radiation..that is energy movement from a warmer atmosphere to a cooler instrument. If you want to show back radiation, then you need to be measuring discrete wavelengths of radiation moving from a cooler object to a warmer object...alas, you won't see that happening spontaneously anywhere...anytime.

 

[Wuwei]

The chart shows that radiation was measured with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...that isn't back radiation..that is energy movement from a warmer atmosphere to a cooler instrument. If you want to show back radiation, then you need to be measuring discrete wavelengths of radiation moving from a cooler object to a warmer object...alas, you won't see that happening spontaneously anywhere...anytime.

In fact the spectrum analyzer was cooled to liquid nitrogen temperature to reduce the noise level. The spectrometer measured radiation from a warmer atmosphere to the very cold detector. Do you disagree that they measured GHG back radiation? If so where do you think the radiation came from?

 

[Old Rocks]

My goodness, it is cooling so fast;

Climate Reanalyzer

It has cooled by +0.7 degree C for the world. By +1.1 degrees C for the northern hemisphere. That is some cooling, Silly Billy.

 

[mamooth]

His chart doesn't even begin to support the "greenhouse theory", all it shows that yes CO2 absorbs some IR, which is only about 6-8% of all IR outflow from the planet, Since Mankind produce an estimated 3% of the yearly CO2 emission flow, which leaves 97% to Nature and around 95% never absorbed as it leaves the planet, there is so little effect to brag about.

See? More of that total denier failure at every bit of science that I was talking about. This one fails to understand the basics of an equilibrium system. If I make $1000 each week and spend $1000 each week, my bank account remains steady. If I make $1030 each week and spend $1000, my bank account steadily rises, even though it's only a 3% increase.

The chronically missing "hot spot" is fatal to the "greenhouse Theory", thus the whole stupid thing should have been dropped by now.

And he fails at knowing that the hotspot is demonstrated. Of course, you can't really blame him for not knowing the basics. He only reads denier sources, as that's what the cult orders, and those denier sources always lie to him.

 

[mamooth]

In fact the spectrum analyzer was cooled to liquid nitrogen temperature to reduce the noise level. The spectrometer measured radiation from a warmer atmosphere to the very cold detector. Do you disagree that they measured GHG back radiation? If so where do you think the radiation came from?

I'm interested in how SSDD's very peculiar theory explains the peaks and troughs in the measured IR spectrum, and why they match the IR absorption spectrum of greenhouse gases. His insane theory is that the photoreceptors in the instrument know to emit more when pointed at a colder object. However, that theory doesn't explain the frequency variation. It should yield a smooth line across all frequency bands, and the lack of such a smooth line means his bizarre theory fails hard in yet another way.

Maybe he'll regale us with tales of photons that aren't just intelligent or super-intelligent, but super-duper-duper-intelligent. These photons emitted by the receptor actually know they're supposed to mimic, in reverse, the emission spectrum of greenhouse gases. But only when they're pointed at greenhouse gases.

 

[SSDD]

The chart shows that radiation was measured with an instrument cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...that isn't back radiation..that is energy movement from a warmer atmosphere to a cooler instrument. If you want to show back radiation, then you need to be measuring discrete wavelengths of radiation moving from a cooler object to a warmer object...alas, you won't see that happening spontaneously anywhere...anytime.

In fact the spectrum analyzer was cooled to liquid nitrogen temperature to reduce the noise level. The spectrometer measured radiation from a warmer atmosphere to the very cold detector. Do you disagree that they measured GHG back radiation? If so where do you think the radiation came from?

You tell yourself that...and don't bother wondering why discrete wavelengths can be measured moving from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere without cooling the instrument but if you want to measure discrete wavelengths coming from cooler objects, you must cool the instrument to temperatures lower than the instrument. Don't ever ask yourself that because you might have to come face to face with the reality that you are and have been wrong all along.

As I said...backradiation if it existed, is by definition radiation moving from a cool object to a warmer object...measuring energy moving from a warmer atmosphere to a cooler instrument is not measuring back radiation as energy moving from warm to cool is not back radiation.

 

[SSDD]

His chart doesn't even begin to support the "greenhouse theory", all it shows that yes CO2 absorbs some IR, which is only about 6-8% of all IR outflow from the planet, Since Mankind produce an estimated 3% of the yearly CO2 emission flow, which leaves 97% to Nature and around 95% never absorbed as it leaves the planet, there is so little effect to brag about.

See? More of that total denier failure at every bit of science that I was talking about. This one fails to understand the basics of an equilibrium system. If I make $1000 each week and spend $1000 each week, my bank account remains steady. If I make $1030 each week and spend $1000, my bank account steadily rises, even though it's only a 3% increase.

The chronically missing "hot spot" is fatal to the "greenhouse Theory", thus the whole stupid thing should have been dropped by now.

And he fails at knowing that the hotspot is demonstrated. Of course, you can't really blame him for not knowing the basics. He only reads denier sources, as that's what the cult orders, and those denier sources always lie to him.

Is that energy which is supposedly "trapped" changing its frequency?

 

[SSDD]

I'm interested in how SSDD's very peculiar theory explains the peaks and troughs in the measured IR spectrum, and why they match the IR absorption spectrum of greenhouse gases. His insane theory is that the photoreceptors in the instrument know to emit more when pointed at a colder object. However, that theory doesn't explain the frequency variation. It should yield a smooth line across all frequency bands, and the lack of such a smooth line means his bizarre theory fails hard in yet another way.

Idiot. I never said that so called greenhouse gasses don't absorb radiation...typical of warmers, you make up some ridiculous argument to rail against rather than what I actually said.

 

[mamooth]

Idiot. I never said that so called greenhouse gasses don't absorb radiation...typical of warmers, you make up some ridiculous argument to rail against rather than what I actually said.

You don't know what you say from post to post. That's one reason why everyone laughs at you so hard.

So, why does the IR spectrometer measure an IR spectrum that shows the peaks and troughs that correspond with greenhouse gas emissions?

Remember, your explanation for why an uncooled camera shows colder clouds so accurately is that the camera sensors know to radiate more towards colder parts of the sky. You flat out rejected the idea that backradiation was being detected by the camera.

So, we have the IR spectrometer. It would work uncooled as well, though with less accuracy, and show those peaks and troughs across the spectrum corresponding with GHG emission bands.

According to your theory, that has to somehow be caused by the receptors in the camera. So how do they do it? How do they know to restrict single frequencies from emitting?

 

[SSDD]

Idiot. I never said that so called greenhouse gasses don't absorb radiation...typical of warmers, you make up some ridiculous argument to rail against rather than what I actually said.

You don't know what you say from post to post. That's one reason why everyone laughs at you so hard.

So, why does the IR spectrometer measure an IR spectrum that shows the peaks and troughs that correspond with greenhouse gas emissions?

Remember, your explanation for why an uncooled camera shows colder clouds so accurately is that the camera sensors know to radiate more towards colder parts of the sky. You flat out rejected the idea that backradiation was being detected by the camera.

So, we have the IR spectrometer. It would work uncooled as well, though with less accuracy, and show those peaks and troughs across the spectrum corresponding with GHG emission bands.

According to your theory, that has to somehow be caused by the receptors in the camera. So how do they do it? How do they know to restrict single frequencies from emitting?

Step on up to the plate hairball...and show me a measurement of discrete radiation bands from so called greenhouse gasses made with instruments not cooled to a temperature lower than that of the gasses they are measuring. When you can do that, then you can show a measurement of back radiation....anything else is nothing more than you being fooled by instrumentation.

And I asked you if the energy your so called greenhouse gasses are trapping changing in frequency...and if so, can you demonstrate that it is changing?

 

[mamooth]

Step on up to the plate hairball..

Expound to us on your retard theory some more.

At exactly what point does the instrument switch from 'absorb' to 'emit' mode? I mean, temperature is a statistical quality, not a hard quality. Some molecules in any gas are moving fast, some moving slow.

So, is the transition from 'absorb' to 'emit' mode by the receptor make a sharp cutoff when the whole collection of gas reaches a certain statistical average temperature, or does each molecule of the receptor scan the gas molecule-by-molecule, flipping at super speeds from 'absorb' to 'emit' and back again?

And when the instrument is in 'absorb' mode,can it still be emitting in a different direction, based on the colder sky? How does the math for that work? And how does the object know to flip?

You clearly haven't thought this through.

And I asked you if the energy your so called greenhouse gasses are trapping changing in frequency...and if so, can you demonstrate that it is changing?

Obviously it's changing. Was there any point to such a stupid question, or was it just a diversion on your part?

And remember, rage-weeping at me won't make you less of my sweet beeyatch, so don't be doin' that.

 

[SSDD]

Step on up to the plate hairball..

Expound to us on your retard theory some more.

So you can't produce any measurement of discrete wavelengths from so called greenhouse gasses made with instruments at ambient temperature. That's what I said. To bad you don't know why such measurements can't be made.

Obviously it's changing. Was there any point to such a stupid question, or was it just a diversion on your part?[/qyite]

Evidence? Or is it changing just because you said so? And to what frequency is it changing?

And remember, rage-weeping at me won't make you less of my sweet beeyatch, so don't be doin' that.

Demential must suck...seems that you are unable to remember realty at all. All fantasy all the time.

 

[Sunsettommy]

His chart doesn't even begin to support the "greenhouse theory", all it shows that yes CO2 absorbs some IR, which is only about 6-8% of all IR outflow from the planet, Since Mankind produce an estimated 3% of the yearly CO2 emission flow, which leaves 97% to Nature and around 95% never absorbed as it leaves the planet, there is so little effect to brag about.

See? More of that total denier failure at every bit of science that I was talking about. This one fails to understand the basics of an equilibrium system. If I make $1000 each week and spend $1000 each week, my bank account remains steady. If I make $1030 each week and spend $1000, my bank account steadily rises, even though it's only a 3% increase.

The chronically missing "hot spot" is fatal to the "greenhouse Theory", thus the whole stupid thing should have been dropped by now.

And he fails at knowing that the hotspot is demonstrated. Of course, you can't really blame him for not knowing the basics. He only reads denier sources, as that's what the cult orders, and those denier sources always lie to him.

No the "hot spot" has NOT been shown to exist in the real world, it lives on in models and brainless warmists fevered imagination, who amazingly fail to produce the real world physical evidence of it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

My goodness, it is cooling so fast;

Climate Reanalyzer

It has cooled by +0.7 degree C for the world. By +1.1 degrees C for the northern hemisphere. That is some cooling, Silly Billy.

Wow...

Old Fraud, The unadjusted data says it is cooling. Only your Karl Et Al garbage and your failed modeling says its warming.. Looks like I need to post up current balloon data sets again...

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Silly Billy, I do think that I will go with the real scientists, rather than some burger flippin' liar on the internet. LOL

 

[Wuwei]

You tell yourself that...and don't bother wondering why discrete wavelengths can be measured moving from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere without cooling the instrument but if you want to measure discrete wavelengths coming from cooler objects, you must cool the instrument to temperatures lower than the instrument. Don't ever ask yourself that because you might have to come face to face with the reality that you are and have been wrong all along.

As I said...backradiation if it existed, is by definition radiation moving from a cool object to a warmer object...measuring energy moving from a warmer atmosphere to a cooler instrument is not measuring back radiation as energy moving from warm to cool is not back radiation.

You are digressing and not making any sense. The detector is facing the sky. You are making no sense when you say "you must cool the instrument to temperatures lower than the instrument." I said the liquid nitrogen detector temperature was much lower than anything in the atmosphere.

You talk about wavelengths moving from the warmer surface to the atmosphere. That is a digression. I was clear that the detector is facing up and is not looking at the surface.

You are said that "measuring energy moving from a warmer atmosphere to a cooler instrument is not measuring back radiation as energy moving from warm to cool is not back radiation." For the third time, "warm to cool" has nothing to do with the detector setup. My question again: if you don't think it is back radiation hitting the very cold detector, then what is generating the complex spectrum? The detector setup is very simple and the question is very simple. Do you agree or disagree with the researcher's statement that they were measuring back radiation.

.