Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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 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.
Unlike you, I have made no false claims. I am a 75 year old fully employed millwright with a strong interest in science. Strong enough I have taken university classes in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Geology. Plus several Calculus classes.
Yes, yes. It certainly is normal energy flow. But what causes the the complex spectra of that "normal energy flow" to a cold detector at night in a dry atmosphere?.Do you have any idea?Since the radiation is moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument, it is just measuring normal energy flow.
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.
remember when they claimed that they detected the hot spot via wind? Thermometers couldn't detect it but it was easily detected with an anemometer? To bad their models didn't predict a windy spot. Guess that was about the only thing they haven't predicted.
Notice the utter silence from Old Rocks, Mamooth, Wuwei, over the fact that the AGW based "hot spot" prediction has failed to show up?
Notice the utter silence from Old Rocks, Mamooth, Wuwei, over the fact that the AGW based "hot spot" prediction has failed to show up?
I addressed it directly in post #48, by pointing out you're just repeating a fraudulent claim.
I do get it. All the science says all of your cult talking points are fraudulent. The only tactic you now see as viable is making up an alternate reality that you can escape into.
SSoDDumb, you are a liar. Only in dispute now from idiots like you. Physics, absorption spectra.
SSDD thinks his smart matter/smart photons know what is going to happen many years in the future in a spot many light years away. Not only does his theory claim faster-than-light communication over vast distances, it claims magical perfect knowledge of random future events at those vast distances.['quote]
Not my theory hairball...just the logical conclusion of photons behaving as science claims they act. I am not the one who said that photons exist at every point along their path simultaneously.
Typical...no actual argument so you make up an argument to rail against.
Your post was totally obsessed with 'warm to cool -- good', but 'cool to warm -- bad'. My post had nothing to do with energy from a cool source going to a warm object.
This is the only point where you forget yourself and say something that is relevant:
Yes, yes. It certainly is normal energy flow. But what causes the the complex spectra of that "normal energy flow" to a cold detector at night in a dry atmosphere?.Do you have any idea?Since the radiation is moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument, it is just measuring normal energy flow.
.
Notice the utter silence from Old Rocks, Mamooth, Wuwei, over the fact that the AGW based "hot spot" prediction has failed to show up?
I addressed it directly in post #48, by pointing out you're just repeating a fraudulent claim.
I do get it. All the science says all of your cult talking points are fraudulent. The only tactic you now see as viable is making up an alternate reality that you can escape into.
Yeah here is his dead on arrival reply:
"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."
Since you didn't post any evidence, you must not have any, as you are so busy with your condescending replies.
My later REPLY never got addressed at all:
"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. "
You don't have anything to counter with apparently.
SSoDDumb, you are a liar. Only in dispute now from idiots like you. Physics, absorption spectra.
So lets see some observed, measured data which supports your claim that absorption and emission equals warming...
Guess we all know no such data will be forthcoming. Simply assuming a thing and calling it physics is pseudoscience.
SSoDDumb, you are a liar. Only in dispute now from idiots like you. Physics, absorption spectra.
So lets see some observed, measured data which supports your claim that absorption and emission equals warming...
Guess we all know no such data will be forthcoming. Simply assuming a thing and calling it physics is pseudoscience.
Absorption of a photon increases the total energy of a molecule. Emission of a photon decreases it.
Temperature, and the conditions of warming or cooling, are only applicable to large cohort of particles not individual molecules. A cohort of molecules is warming if it is getting more energy from absorption than it is losing by emission. Only the NET movement of energy affects the temperature.
That's your ilk's hockey schtick.Billy looked at it and said "I've got nothing... but I guess I can always go back to semantics"
Is that your final answer? Really?Your post was totally obsessed with 'warm to cool -- good', but 'cool to warm -- bad'. My post had nothing to do with energy from a cool source going to a warm object.
This is the only point where you forget yourself and say something that is relevant:
Yes, yes. It certainly is normal energy flow. But what causes the the complex spectra of that "normal energy flow" to a cold detector at night in a dry atmosphere?.Do you have any idea?Since the radiation is moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument, it is just measuring normal energy flow.
.
Are you really that dense? Really?
Is that your final answer? Really?Your post was totally obsessed with 'warm to cool -- good', but 'cool to warm -- bad'. My post had nothing to do with energy from a cool source going to a warm object.
This is the only point where you forget yourself and say something that is relevant:
Yes, yes. It certainly is normal energy flow. But what causes the the complex spectra of that "normal energy flow" to a cold detector at night in a dry atmosphere?.Do you have any idea?Since the radiation is moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument, it is just measuring normal energy flow.
.
Are you really that dense? Really?
You didn't answer the simple question what causes the the complex spectra of that "normal energy flow" to a cold detector at night in a dry atmosphere? It is dark and no sun. Are you saying you have no idea?
If you have no idea, methinks you are the one a bit dense.